
Book_i_4:Si 



Zbc XHnivcrsiti? of Cbicago 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



THE 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION 
OF TENNESSEE 



A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE 

SCHOOLS OF ARTS, LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 



BY 

JAMES WALTER FERTIG, A. M. 




CHICAGO 
Sbe 'Qlni\)er0ltc of Cbicago press 

i8q8 



TLbc "Clnipersitp of CbicaQO 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



THE 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION 
OF TENNESSEE 



DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE 
SCHOOLS OF ARTS, LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 



BY 

JAMES WALTER FERTIG, A. M. 



CHICAGO 

Zbc Tantvcrsitg of Cbicago press 

i8q8 



37155 







CONTENTS. 



Bibliography, Pages 7 

Introduction, -------- g 

Chapter I. Secession, ------- 15 

Chapter II. Military Government, . - - - 34 ^ 

Chapter III. The BrownJow Government, - - - 61 

Chapter IV. Federal Reconstruction, ... go 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

The following books and papers have been consulted and found 
of use in the preparation of this dissertation: 

SOURCES. 

Acts of the General Assembly of Tennessee 1861. 
Acts of the General Assembly of Tennessee 1865. 
Acts of the General Assembly of Tennessee 1865-6. 
Acts of the General Assembly of Tennessee 1866. 
House and Senate Journals for the same sessions. 
Congressional Globe of 37th, 38th, and 39th Congresses. 
Reports of Supreme Court of U. S. 
Reports of Supreme Court of Tennessee. 
Report of the Reconstruction Committee of 1866. 
Report of the Frazier Impeachment Trial. 
Report of the Memphis Riots of May, 1866. 
Papers of the Southern Historical Society. 
Papers of the Tennessee Historical Society. 
Reports of Contested Elections in Congress of 1863. 
Rebellion Records. Vols. I to XVI. 
Files of the Nashville Dailies: 

Daily Banner. 1860-1862, 1864-1866. 

Daily Union. 1862-1865. 

Patriot. 1 864- 1 866. 

Dispatch. 1862- 1866. 

Union and American. 1865- 1866. 
The Rebellion Record. — Frank Moore. Vols. I to XII. 
Political History during the Civil War. — McPherson. 
Annual Register for 186 1-6. 
Am. Ann. Cyclopedia, i860- 1866. 
Reports on the Conduct of the War. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Blaine — 20 Years in Congress. 

Birkimer — Military Government and Martial Law. 



8 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Brownlow — Parson Brownlow's Book. 
Caldwell — Constitutional History of Tennessee. 
Chittenden — Report of the Secret Session of Peace Committee 
i86i. 

Cox, S. S. — Three Decades of Federal Legislation. 

Draper — American Civil War. 

Herbert — Noted Men of the South. 

Hume's Loyal Mountaineers. 

Houghton — History of American Politics. 

Lindsley — Military Annals of Tennessee. 

Loring — Reconstruction. 

Lossing — Civil War. 

Miller's Manual of Tennessee. * 

Nicholay and Hay, Life of Lincoln. 

Phelan — History of Tennessee. 

Scott — Reconstruction during Civil War. 

Taylor — Destruction and Reconstruction. 

Victor — History of Southern Rebellion. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The triumph of the federal arms in the American Civil War only 
placed upon the federal government a greater task. The sword 
could conquer but could not convince, could overthrow the Con- 
federacy but could not reestablish the Union, which then became 
a political necessity and a constitutional obligation of the govern- 
ment no less to the North than to the South. The North was com- 
pelled for its own sake to make the South equal with it in every 
sense, for to have held the South as a conquered province would 
have soon wrought the destruction of the Northern states as states. 
The Constitution could not long have stood the strain oi two sorts 
of governments among states nominally and constitutionally equal. 
The re-admission of the seceded states to all their original rights 
under the Constitution was a problem which demanded immediate 
solution, but its complexity required time. 

The re-admission of the states was not the only question involved 
in reconstruction. The admission of four millions of people, morally 
low, poverty-stricken and ignorant, as constituent members of the 
bodies-politic, and their transformation in a day into a people cap- 
able of performing the duties of citizenship in a highly civilized, 
self-governng society, was a question more difficult to solve. In 
fact, upon the question of the freedmen the whole subject of the 
re-admission of the states turned. Almost every act, either of Con- 
gress, of the President, or of the states themselves, was viewed in 
the light of its effect upon the negroes. It would perhaps have 
been just as well for all concerned if the Federal Government had 
left this matter entirely to the states, as it was done in the border 
states, but this was not in harmony with the policy of the party 
in power. The Federal Government had in the end to give the 
question over to the states. The question of the freedmen, how- 
ever, although so intimately connected with the restoration of the 
states, must, in the present treatise, for obvious reasons, be left 
for the most part untouched. 

Another important factor in the problem of reconstruction .was 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

the fact that it must be solved by the leaders of the party in power, 
whose preceding history rendered them least fit for such a task. 
The Civil War had greatly excited their passions, and, almost every 
day, they had stepped beyond the usual limitations of the Con- 
stitution, until it had become a habit with them to decide all ques- 
tions according to their feelings rather than according to law. Dur- 
ing the war, they had looked upon the Federal Government as pos- 
sessing both the authority of a constitutional sovereign and all the 
rights of w-ar accorded to a belligerent by the law of nations.' As 
the constitutional rights were limited, they came more and more 
to rely upon the more vague and undefined powers confirmed by 
the laws of war. And, when the w^ar was over, they applied to 
the questions of reconstruction the same absolutism which they 
had employed during the war. They were evidently wholly unfit 
for the settlement of so important a matter, but as they were the 
party in power, they alone could solve it. This necessity, how- 
ever, made the solution of the problem the more dif^cult. 

How to solve the problem the men in power could not agree. 
The difificulties in the way were almost insurmountable. The ques- 
tions of law would not harmonize with the facts. There was, 
indeed, only one solution and that was found, not in the states- 
manship of the Federal Government, nor in the virtues of the freed- 
men, nor in the good temper and good policy of the South, but in 
the good common-sense of the whole American people. The sense 
of fairness in the people led to the revival of the principle that 
the people must be trusted — the fundamental principle of the Con- 
stitution. The Republic of the Constitution could only be saved 
by the application of this principle to the whole country. To this 
principle of the Constitution the politicians had at last to yield 
and to leave the question of the social status and business rela- 
tions of the freedman to be solved by himself and his former owner. 

The judiciary Avas the first to make this change from the way 
of the politician. In the case of Texas v. White, the Supreme 
Court reasserted the principle that our country is "an indestructible 
Union of indestructible states.'" The people recognized this as a 
principle long cherished, and began to retrace their steps and to 

1. McPherson's History of Rebellion, 326. 

2. 7 Wall, 700. 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

revise their sentiments to harmonize with it. Thus it was, long 
after the war closed, that the real Union was reetablished, and this 
not by solving the questions of law, for they were unable to do 
that, but by closing the question of fact. 

The logical as well as chronological beginning of the historv of 
reconstruction was the appointment of a Military Governor for 
Tennessee. In the work of Governor Johnson one sees not only 
the first military government of an American state, but what is 
more important, the work of the man, who, as President, resumed 
the work of reconstruction as it fell from the hands of President 
Lincoln. In the military government and the Military Governor 
of Tennessee one sees the future of reconstruction and the policy 
of the future "reconstruction President." This fact makes the re- 
construction of Tennessee of greater importance than it would other- 
wise be, and gives additional weight to every word and act of Gov- 
ernor Johnson. 

In the "Address to the People of Tennessee" of March 12, 1862, 
Governor Johnson declared that he was appointed as "military" 
governor, in "absence of the regular and established state author- 
ities," for the purpose of "restoring her government to the same 
condition as before the existing rebellion." * More than three years 
afterwards, in the summer of 1865, he, as President, appointed 
provisional governors for the states "deprived of all civil govern- 
ment" for the purpose of enabling "the loyal people of said state 
to organize a state government." In the proclamations of 1865, we 
see President Johnson pursuing a policy of reconstruction of which 
his own appointment as Military Governor of Tennessee was the 
inception. 

There were other respects in which Tennessee held a unique 
position during the period of her reconstruction. She was the 
last state to secede and the first one to succumb to federal arms — 
only eight months intervening between the "Declaration of Inde- 
pendence" and the appointment of Governor Johnson. For this 
reason she was less attached to the Confederacy and less aflfected 
by Confederate administration than any other of the seceded states. 
She was the only seceded state not mentioned in the Emancipation 
Proclamation and the only one which had the nominal honor of 

I. See "Appeal" Union, April 10, 1862. 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

freeing the slaves. Her geographical position and the direction of 
her rivers gave easy entrance to both armies and made her soil 
little else than a camping-ground or a battlefield. Four hundred 
engagements were fought within the state." Every able-bodied man 
was compelled to enter one or the other army in order to secure 
protection. The result of this is seen in the number of troops fur- 
nished by the state, which was greater than that furnished by any 
other state, either North or South. From a male population, 
which cast 145,000 votes at the presidential election of i860, came 
115,000 troops for the Confederate army, and 31,000 for the Union 
army.' 

Tennessee was the only one of the seceded states which had so 
considerable a body of citizens who remained constantly loyal to 
the Union. As a consequence she was the only one which escaped 
military reconstruction, and the only one in which the battle for 
political power was fought out between factions of native whites. 
She escaped the ignominy and burdens of "carpet-bag govern- 
ment" and military reconstruction, but the strife between her own 
people, the effects of which may be seen at the present time, was 
the penalty which she paid for the privilege. Because the people 
were so nearly equally divided, the struggle was the more intense, 
but for the same reason it was the sooner ended. 

In one other respect Tennessee held an exceptional position. 
The re-organization of the state was in the strictest sense a voluntary 
movement, which fact, apparent to all, won for her many friends in 
the North, especially in Congress, and gained h'er early readmission 
to the Union. 

The history of the reconstruction of Tennessee is a drama in 
three acts and a prologue. The prologue deals with the secession 
movement, a knowledge of which is necessary to an adequate under- 
standing of the subsequent history, for it was in the secession 
movement that the division of the people into parties began. The 
first act begins with the appointment of Governor Johnson and 
deals with the military administration. The second act begins with 
the re-organization of the state government in April, 1865, and gives 
the history of that government to July, 1866, when the state was 

1. Miller's Manual, p. 93. 

2. Miller's Manual, p. 132. 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

formally readmitted to the Union. The third act gives the history 
of federal reconstruction to the last-named date. To each of these 
divisions a chapter has been given in the following pages. 

As has been said, Tennessee v^as the last state to secede. The 
genuine paTriotism of a majority of her people was sufficient to " 
prevent secession until after the war had begun. Her commercial 
and economic relations bound her to both sections. Her geo- 
graphical situation caused her to dread war, for she foresaw that 
her soil must become the field of battle. She, therefore, assumed 
what she called an attitude of neutrality and tried to maintain the 
peace and to reestablish the Union. The failure of the Peace 
Conference on which she had counted so much, and the attack on 
Fort Sumter drove her from her nominal neutrality into co-oper- 
ation with the South. 

The life of the secession government in Tennessee was short, 
for it abdicated as the result of the first battle in the state.' The 
chapter on this period is in no sense a discussion of the question 
of secession, which was settled once and for always by the arbitra- 
ment of the sword, but it is merely a narrative of the events by 
which the state was carried into the Confederacy, and the inevit- 
able consequences of these events upon the people. 

The overthrow of the secession government, made necessary 
the appointment of a military governor. Governor Johnson made 
attempts immediately and at several times thereafter to re-organize 
the civil government of the state, but all these attempts failed, until 
the people of East Tennessee undertook the task in the summer 
of 1864. The movement started by them at this time led, by suc- 
cessive steps to the inauguration of the Brownlow government in 
April, 1865. 

Having refused to secede, and having taken the leading part 
in the re-organization of the state, East Tennessee naturally thought 
she had a right to conduct the afifairs of the state after re-organiza- 
tion, as a reward for her faithfulness and sufferings. With the 
inauguration of the Brownlow administration she undertook the 
task and the next five years were filled with the history of that 
government. The present treatise covers only a portion of the 
period. A very interesting chapter including the Ku Klux move- 

I. Ft. Donelson, Feb. 16, '62. 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

ment, the economic history of reconstruction and the coup de main 
by which the Democrats gained control of the state government in 
1869, is still to be written. 

From the very inauguration of the Brownlow government, the 
great question before it was how to prolong the rule of the Radical 
Party in the state, for upon that depended not only the interests of 
the party, but also the reconstruction of the state. 

The Federal Government began the war with the theory that the 
states were in the Union and pledged itself to restore them at the 
close of the war with all their equality, rights and dignities unim- 
paired. But long before the close of the war, largely owing to the 
spirit enkindled by the severity of the conflict and the desire to 
interfere in the states in behalf of the negroes, the theory of simple 
restoration was given up, and the theory substituted that the federal 
government had a right to impose conditions upon the states prec- 
edent to their readmission to participation in the government of 
the Union. This was the reconstruction theory of reestablishing 
the Union. The question of the nature of the conditions to be 
imposed and what department of the government should impose 
them led to a long and bitter contest among the different factions 
in Congress, and between Congress and the President. 

This contest had already been waged for two years, when, in 
December, 1865, the Senators and Representatives from Tennessee 
appeared in Washington and asked to be admitted to seats in the 
national councils. Congress refused to admit them until the state 
had been declared a member of the Union by a formal act of the 
legislative power of the United States. For almost eight months 
they were kept waiting, when, July 23, 1866, the state was declared 
by joint resolution to be thereby restored to the Union. The next 
day the entire delegation was admitted to seats, and the state was 
restored to all her rights under the Constitution. 



CHAPTER I. 

' SECESSION. 

The first attitude of Tennessee on the questions dividing the 
North and the South immediately before the outbreak of the Civil 
War was one of nominal neutrality. This attitude was fore- 
shadowed by the action of her delegates in the Charles- 
ton Convention of i860. They voted against the South- 
ern proposition to give slavery carte blanche in the territories, 
and met afterwards with the Northern delegates at Baltimore, but 
when the Baltimore convention refused to readmit the delegates 
who withdrew at Charleston, the Tennessee delegates, believing a 
compromise no longer possible, withdrew and joined the other 
Southern delegates in nominating Breckinridge, thus forecasting 
the attitude and action of their state in the secession movement. 
In the Presidential election which followed, the state gave another 
example of her neutral attitude by casting her electoral vote for 
her own son, John Bell, the National Union candidate, who stood 
for the Constitution and the laws as they then existed and opposed 
alike the doctrines of the Democrats and Republicans. This elec- 
toral vote fitly represented the sentiments of the people. They 
were in fact neutral because opposed to both the extreme parties, 
and not merely because they were unable to agree among them- 
selves. 

Although Lincoln had not received a single vote in the state 
there was no cause to fear any opposition from her citizens. They 
had expected his election and were prepared to do their duty under 
the Constitution. 

When the Legislature of South Carolina took the first steps 
toward secession the people of Tennessee, though inclined to ridi- 
cule its action, were disgusted and indignant. The following quo- 
tations from the leading papers of the state correctly represent the 
prevailing sentiment: 

"We take it to be certain that Abraham Lincoln has received 



16 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

the majority of the electoral votes required by the Constitution 
to make him president-elect of the United States. However much 
we may deplore such a result we accept it as the result of our 
system of free government in which it is our duty to acquiesce. The 
South, in giving him a fair trial, will but discharge her duty to the 
founders of the Republic, and exhibit to the world the dignity of 
a brave and gallant people who, while asking only what is right, 
are calmly self-reliant in their ability to repel whatever is wrong." ' 

"We entertain no doubt as to where the people of Tennessee 
now stand and will continue to stand with reference to the results 
of the Presidential election. The prevalent sentiment in Tennessee 
is that disunion is no remedy for existing evils — if evils really do 
exist, peculiarly and exclusively Southern — or for evils threatened 
as likely to result from the constitutional election of any man 
to the Presidency, though he were ten times as hostile to the 
Southern Institutions as Abraham Lincoln is represented to be." * 

"Let every man put his foot on disunion. It is no remedy 
for Southern wrong, or it is only the madman's remedy." ^ 

An open letter from ex-Governor Neil Brown, published in all 
the journals of the state, exhorted the people to stand by the Union, 
since there was every reason to believe that President Lincoln would 
administer the government in a conservative manner, and would 
do the South no injustice in the matter of slavery in the territories 
because there were no territories belonging to the Union where a 
Southern man would care to take his slaves.* 

The newspapers of the state were full of such addresses from 
influential men. The fact that ex-Governor Johnson, one of the 
United States Senators, and a majority of the Representatives were 
uncompromising Union men, further served to steady public senti- 
ment. 

The strong Union sentiment in Tennessee, although not 
the result of, was in a large degree dependent upon, the attitude and 
acts of the other Southern States. A few days after the election 
of Lincoln were sufficient to show that South Carolina would, with- 
out doubt, execute her threat of secession, and the spread of the 

1. Memphis Bulletin, Nov. 12. 

2. Nashville Banner, Nov. 13. 

3. Memphis Enquirer, Nov. I3- 

4. McPherson, War of Rebellion, p. 86. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 17 

contagion southward and westward depended upon the action of 
Georgia. So long as Georgia and Tennessee upheld the federal 
Constitution South Carolina was isolated, for the Gulf states would 
hardly dare to move without the assurance that Georgia at least 
would go out with them. Thus it was that Tennessee, feeling that 
the destinies of the Union were largely in her keeping, with a 
confident air held to her neutral policy, hoping to act as peace- 
maker between the hostile parties. The safety and success of this 
policy depended not upon Tennessee, however, but upon Georgia, 
and when the Legislature of the latter state November i8th, de- 
cided to call a state convention to take action on the question of 
secession, and appropriated $1,000,000 to arm the state, the neutral 
policy of Tennessee was materially weakened. This policy was 
further weakened when the Legislature of Georgia adopted, De- 
cember 3, a resolution proposing a conference of all the slave- 
holding states. 

This action of the Legislature of Georgia played into the hands 
of the secessionists in Tennessee. Under pretext of advocating this 
conference, meetings were held in various parts of the state for the 
purpose of cr<?ating and organizing secession sentiment. A large 
meeting in Memphis declared that Tennessee would stand 
by the convention of the Southern states for weal or woe. 
Petitions were signed at these meetings asking the Governor to 
convene the Legislature to appoint delegates to the proposed con- 
ference. Governor Harris, warmly sympathizing with the seces- 
sion movement, and maintaining an active correspondence with its 
leaders in other states, was not slow to act on these petitions, for 
he hoped by convening the Legislature to commit the state to 
some plan of co-operation with the other Southern states. Accord- 
ingly, on the 8th of December he issued his proclamation calling the 
General Assembly to meet in extra session, January 7, 1861. The 
purpose of the session as expressed in the proclamation was "to 
consider the present condition of the country," a phrase sufBciently 
indefinite to cover secession or any measures less radical.^ 

The proclamation of the Governor was regarded as a victory by 
the secessionists, and they were further encouraged by President 

I. House Journal, Jan. 7, 1861. 



18 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

Buchanan's message denying the power of the Federal Government 
to coerce seceded states. The secession of South Carohna, De- 
cember 20th, and the manifesto of Robert Toombs to the citizens 
of Georgia two days later, announcing the failure of the Crittenden 
compromise, were to them occasions of great rejoicing, and evidences 
of ultimate success. Ratification meetings were held in all the larger 
towns of Middle and West Tennessee. Speeches were made en- 
dorsing the action of South Carolina and recommending Tennessee 
to do likewise, newspaper offices were illuminated, and fifteen guns 
were fired indicating that the slave-holding states would all follow 
the example of South Carolina. This was the usual program.' It 
was hoped by this course to create a public sentiment in favor of 
secession which would influence the Legislature, then about to 
meet, to submit an ordinance of secession to the popular vote. 

The Legislature convened January 7, and, by the election of 
Breckinridge Democrats to all the oiifices in both houses, gave evi- 
dence of the change of sentiment in the state. The Governor, in his 
message, advised that the question of calling a convention be sub- 
mitted to a vote of the people, although he thought the remedy for 
the present evils lay in amendments to the Federal Constitution. 

As suitable amendments, he suggested that the Missouri Com- 
promise be reenacted and that the line be extended to the Pacific 
ocean; that any state refusing to return fugitive slaves should pay 
the owner twice their value; that security to masters in traveling 
with slaves through a free state be guaranteed, and slaves lost in 
transit be paid for by the state in which the loss occurs; that the 
abolition of slavery in places where the United States have exlusive 
jurisdiction be prohibited; and, finally, that these provisions be 
unalterable except by the unanimous consent of all the slave-holding 
states.^ In the event that the amendments failed to pass, Tennessee, 
he i^aid, must maintain her equality in the Union or her independ- 
ence out of it.^ In order that the state might be prepared for any 
event he recommended the organization of the militia and the 
immediate purchase of arms. 

The course of events in other states tended greatly to strengthen 

1. Memphis Daily Avalanche, Dec. 23. 

2. Message Acts, ex. sess., 1861. 

3. Ibid. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 19 

the cause of the secessionists in Tennessee. Before the Legislature 
met, Governor ElHs of North CaroHna had already taken charge 
of certain forts and arsenals in that state. Governor Harris' mes- 
sage had scarcely been read, when the news came that The Star of 
the West had been driven from Fort Sumter by order of the state 
of South Carolina. The next day Mississippi seceded. The next 
day and the day following added Florida and Alabama to the list. 
When the convention of Georgia on the 17th, after a few hours 
discussion, adopted an ordinance of secession by a vote of 208 to 89, 
the Unionists in the Legislature of Tennessee could no longer hold 
out against the secessionists, and on the 19th an act was passed 
submitting the questions of secession and of calling a convention 
to a vote of the people, February 9th.' After appointing delegates 
to a convention of the Southern States, the Legislature adjourned to 
await the action of the people. 

The ready compliance of the Legislature with the recommenda- 
tions of the Governor alarmed the Union people. The Nashville 
Daily Banner, of January 26th, warned every citizen to be aware 
of a treacherous conspiracy to break up the government, and de- 
manded that every man should rise in his might and put down the 
political tricksters. Whatever occasion there may have been for 
alarm, it must be admitted that a certain controlling conservatism 
manifested itself in the work of the Legislature. It is true that 
it endorsed the position of the Governor that additional guarantees 
to the South should be made a condition of Tennessee's remaining 
in the Union, but it determined that the state should not be pre- 
cipitated into secession by a mere faction. The people were to have 
an opportunity to choose delegates to the convention with respect 
to their attitude on the question of secession.^ Then if the conven- 
tion decided to make any change in the relations of the state to the 
Union, the people were to have'another opportunity to vote against 
secession. Finally, to make secession valid, it must be carried by 
a vote equal to the majority vote at the gubernatorial election of 

1. Acts, ex. sess., 1861, p. 15. 

2. See ordinance, Acts, p. 15. 



20 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

1859. These provisions were intended as safe-guards against hasty 
and thoughtless revolution. 

Before the day set for the election arrived the Peace Conference 
met at Washington and in the hope that some compromise would 
yet be adopted the people cast their votes in favor of the Union 
and against the calling of a convention. They were too strongly 
attached to the Union to vote to leave it so long as there was 
any hope of peace. The proposition to call a convention was 

negatived by a vote of 69,675 to 57,798.' East Tennessee 
voted against it 5 to i, Middle Tennessee by a majority 
of 1,382, while West Tennessee gave a majority of 15,118 for it." 
It was thus decided that a convention was not necessary to de- 
termine the status of Tennessee. The people were afraid that a 
convention might, as in other states, carry the state out of the 
Union, contrary to their instructions. On the plain question of 
secession, the vote stood 24,749 for and 91,803 against, even Mem- 
phis giving a majority of 400 against it.' Thus did the people em- 
phatically rebuke the action of the Governor and Legislature and 
justify the statement already made that they were overwhelmingly 
for the Union. This result is surprising in view of the fact that 
seven of the states had already seceded and had organized a Pro- 
visional Government at Montgomery. 

From this time the loyal people thought that they had effectually 
killed the secession movement in the state, and were doubtless 
lulled into inactivity and a sense of security by their success. For 
two months after the election nothing occurred to change their 
sentiments, or to cause the state to alter its relations with the 
Union. If the vote had been taken sixty days after the first elec- 
tion, the result would, unquestionably, have been the same. The 
Governor and Legislature were still a minority and they would 
have remained so, but for the attack on Fort Sumter. If there 
had been no war, Tennessee would never have left the Union.* 

The first news of the attack on Fort Sumter came with the 

1. Brownlow, 219. 

2. Ibid. 220. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Herbert, noted men of the South, p. 169. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 21 

force and suddenness of an electric shock, and spread over the 
state with the rapidity of the telegraph. On that same day a vigi- 
lance committee expelled Judge Catron from Nashville, because he 
would not resign his place on the federal supreme bench.'' Every 
city and town in Middle and West Tennessee was the scene of en- 
thusiastic demonstrations. Petitions and resolutions from all quar- 
ters, unanimous in their demand for co-operation with the South, 
came pouring in upon the Governor. The newspapers were full 
of flaming editorials, and letters and addresses from influential 
citizens.^ So great was the sympathy for the Confederacy, that, 
when the call came from President Lincoln for two regiments to 
aid in suppressing the rebellion, Governor Harris felt that he voiced 
the sentiments of a large majority of the people in refusing to send 
the troops." The bombardment of Fort Sumter settled the status 
of Tennessee. The first gun-shot drove her from her neutral atti- 
tude to that of cooperation with the Confederacy. 

The change in Tennessee is exemplified by the change that took 
place in Arkansas at the same time. The state convention of 
Arkansas had met the very last of March and had voted against 
secession 39 to 35, but as a compromise measure had agreed to 
submit the question to the popular vote at the state election in 
August. But immediately after the attack on Fort Samter, the 
convention met again and voted 69 to i for secession. 

The reasons for this sudden change of feeling in the border 
states are obvious. The Gulf states had demanded additional guar- 
antees for slavery, and had seceded because they thought thej 
could make better terms out of the Union than in it. The border 
states maintained the same doctrines of state sovereignty and seces- 
sion and demanded the same guarantees for slavery, but believing 
that they could obtain better terms from the North and exert a 
greater influence, by remaining in the Union, they had refused to 
secede, merely as a matter of policy. They did not believe that 
either party would proceed to actual war, and so long as the peace 

1. Daily Banner, of April 16. 

2. Ibid, p. 50. 

3. Original telegram in Tenn. Hist. Soc. Lib. 



22 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

was maintained, they could safely remain neutral with a fair pros- 
pect of casting the deciding vote in the reconstruction of the 
Union. But the firing on Fort Sumter and the certainty that the 
Federal Government would attempt to coerce the South, and that 
they must fight on one side or the other, compelled them to side 
with the Confederacy. In any conflict for what was regarded as 
South e.-n rights Tennessee was sure to go with the Gulf states, 
for she was bound to them by inseparable social and economic 
bonds. All this was clearly understood by the Confederate leaders, 
ana the bombardment of Fort Sumter was a deliberate move on their 
part, for the purpose of strengthening their cause by the secession 
of the border states.' 

For a few days the conservative Union leaders of Tennessee 
attempted to stay the tide of excitement and to defeat the demand 
for secession. Meeting in Nashville on the i8th of April, they 
drew up and published an address to the people, counselling mod- 
eration and continued neutrality.^ Referring to recent events, they 
endorsed the Governor's refusal to send troops to the President, 
but disapproved of secession both as a constitutional right, and as 
a remedy for existing evils. They condemned the coercive policy 
of the Federal Government as calculated to dissolve the Union in 
war. They thought this sufficient reason for refusing troops, but 
not for taking sides against the government. The mission of Ten- 
nessee, they said, was that of peace-maker between the Confederacy 
and the Union. To give up this position would be to transfer 
the war to her own soil, and to defeat every hope of a reconcilia- 
tion between the sections. The state should maintain a position 
of independence, taking sides with the Union and the peace of 
the country. But in closing they virtually gave up their doctrine 
of neutrality by declaring, that, if the United States should under- 
take to subjugate the seceded states, then Tennessee must resist 
at all hazards and by force of arms. For this purpose they called 
upon the authorities to arm the state. This address was signed by 
twelve of the most influential men in the state, among them Neil 

1. McPherson Hist, of Reb., p. 112. 

2. Greeley, 481. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 23 

Brown, Russell Houston, John Bell, E. H. Ewing, Andrew Ewing 
and John Collander/ By this address the conservative element 
was bound hand and foot, for they pledged themselves to resist 
every attempt of the Federal Government to suppress the Confed- 
eracy, which was nothing less than an alliance with the Confed- 
eracy in the impending conflict. They ought to have foreseen that 
a conflict was inevitable. Self-preservation, the highest law of na- 
tions as of nature, compelled the United States to attempt to sup- 
press the insurrection. 

In four days these men were pushed on to the most extreme 
position. At a public meeting held at Nashville on the 22nd, John 
Bell and the two Ewings declared that the time had come for Ten- 
nessee to act with the whole South. They gave up all thought of 
the Union, advocated a league with the Confederacy and urged the 
people to enlist and arm immediately.^ At the same time ex- 
Governor Neil Brown, leader of conservatives, published a letter 
in which he said that the policy of the administration, and of the 
whole North was to wage a war of subjugation against the South, 
that the border-states would be the battle-ground, and that the 
first duty of Tennessee was to arm at once. To talk of keeping 
out of the conflict was idle.^ A letter from F. K. Zollicofifer at the 
same time was to the same effect.* 

On the 15th of April, the very day on which Governor Harris 
had telegraphed his refusal to President Lincoln, he had issued his 
proclamation convening the General Assembly on the 25th. In 
the present state of public opinion the action of the Legislature 
could easily have been foretold. In his message the Governor rec- 
ommended the perfecting of an ordinance formally declaring the 
state independent of the Federal Union, and reassuming the func- 
tions belonging to a separate sovereignty. When this had been 
accomplished, he said, the state must then unite with the Confed- 
eracy, for with the Confederacy she was identified by a common 



1. Moore's Reb. Rec. i, Doc. 71. 

2. Daily Banner, April 23. 

3- Ibid, April 24. 

4- Ibid, April 25. 



24 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

sympathy and a common destiny/ He further recommended that 
ample means be given for a fair and full expression of the popular 
will, however fully satisfied the Governor and Legislature might 
be as to the urgent necessity for the speedy adoption of these ordi- 
nances.' 

On the first day of the session it was decided by joint resolu- 
tion that, with a view to public safety, the Legislature should hold 
its sessions with closed doors whenever a secret session should 
be called for by five members, and that the oath of secrecy should 
then be administered to all ofificers and members.^ The subse- 
quent proceedings of the Legislature were conducted behind closed 
doors. In this manner all the arrangements for secession and 
war were completed. The public was ignorant of what was going 
on, even the contents of the Governor's message remained a secret. 
The editor of the Barmer however, guessed what would be done. 
In the issue of the 26th, he said that although no one could tell 
what the Legislature would do, it was generally supposed that it 
would pass an ordinance declaring the state independent, and an- 
other proposing a union with the Confederacy, both to be voted 
on by the people at an early day; and that in the meantime a 
temporary alliance with the South would be formed to continue 
till the people ratify the proposed union, or in the event they 
refuse to do so, "to continue during the war." It occurred sub- 
stantially as the Banner predicted. 

On the 30th of April, Henry W. Hilliard, agent of the Confed- 
eracy, addressed the Legislature in behalf of his government, argu- 
ing that the pro-slavery governrnxcnt established at Montgomery 
was the only one which could be maintained in the South.^ The 
next day a resolution was adopted in accordance with Mr. Hilliard's 
advice, authorizing the Governor to enter into a military alliance 
with the Confederacy." A committee consisting of G. A. Henry, 
A. W. O. Totten and Washington Barrows was appointed by the 
Legislature to confer with Mr. Hilliard for that purpose. This 
committee, as the result of their negotiations, reported May 7th, 
the Military League which was ratified by the Legislature the same 

I. Acts 2nd ex. sess. p. i. 



Ibid. 

Ibid, p. 50. 

Am. Cyclo. 1861, p. 679. 

Acts 2nd ex. sess. 1861, p. 19. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE- 25 

day\ This Military League was a treaty drawn up in due form 
between two would-be independent sovereignties, the Confederate 
states and the State of Tennessee, and it was to continue until the 
admission of the latter into the Confederacy. In three brief articles 
it provided that Tennessee should give over to the Confederacy 
all her military resources and military operations and all public 
property received from the United States, and that she should 
be reimbursed by the Confederacy for all expenditures for military 
purposes made before she became a member of the Confederacy." 

On the day before the ratification of the League, the Legis- 
lature enacted a law submitting to a vote of the people an ordi- 
nance of secession.^ This law provided for the time and manner 
of holding the election and of making returns, declared Tennessee 
independent of the Federal Union, abrogated and annulled all 
Federal laws binding upon the citizens of the state, absolved all 
state officers from their oath to support the Federal Constitution, 
and provided for the adoption of the provisional constitution of 
the Confederacy. The last clause of the bill declared that it should 
become law on and after its enactment, which made the vote of the 
people superfluous. 

The Legislature found its authority for passing such an act in 
Article I, Section i, of the State Constitution, which reads: "All 
power is inherent in the- people, and they have an unalienable 
and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government 
in such manner as they may think proper." But Section 31, of the 
same article adds: "So far as is consistent with the Constitution 
of the United States," which was evidently the meaning of the 
framers of the Constitution. Li passing this law the General As- 
sembly of Tennessee was guilty of striking out parts of the State 
Constitution and all of the Federal Constitution so far as it applied 
to the state and its people. Its members violated their oath to 
support the Cv. nstitution of the United States f and they disregarded 
the state constitution, by arrogating to themselves rights denied 
even to the people as a whole,^ by placing the military power of 
the state at the disposal of a person other than the Governor of 

I- Acts, ex. sess., 1861, p. 21. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. p. 16. 

4- Art. VI.. sec. 3, U. S. Const. 

5- Art. I., sec. 31, Const, of Tennessee. 



26 SECESSION AND TiECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

the state of the President of the United States/ and by providing 
an extra-legal method of amending the state constitution/ They 
violated the Federal Constitution by absolving state officials from 
the oath to support that instrument/ by entering into an alliance 
with the other states/ and by providing an army in time of peace/ 

After passing acts for raising and equipping a provisional army 
of 55,000 men, appropriating $5,000,000" to equip them, and au- 
thorizing the Bank of Tennessee to receive and pay out Confederate 
treasury notes/ the Legislature adjourned till after the election 
v^hich was set for the 8th of June — ostensibly to await the sanction 
of the people. But this adjournment was only continuing a farce 
which had begun with the arrangements to submit the ordinance 
to a popular vote. The bill declared that it should become law 
from the day of its enactment, and the Governor so considered it. 
To all intents and purposes the state was a member of the Confed- 
eracy from the 7th of May. 

From the day of the attack on Fort Sumter there was never 
any doubt but that a majority of the people were in favor of seces- 
sion. But a mere majority would not suffice. There must be an 
appearance of unanimity. For this purpose mobs and vigilance 
committees expelled or silenced Union men, muzzled editors and 
threatened the lives of Union leaders." When the election day came 
the people went to the polls solemnly impressed with the step they 
were taking, and conscious of the fact that they were no longer 
free to vote their sentiments. They saw that the Governor and 
Legislature with the treasury in their hands, all the arms of the 
state in their possession, and a formidable army in their employ, 
had joined a conspiracy to overthrow the government, and what- 
ever might be the wish of the people, the result would not be 
changed by their votes. Nothing that they could do would free 
them from the military government which had imposed itself upon 
them. The election returns were to be made directly to the Gov- 

1. Const, of Tennessee. 

2. Ibid, Art. XI, sec. 3. 

3- U. S. Const, Art. VI. cl. 3. 

4- Ibid, Art. I, sec. 10. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Acts, 2d ex. sess., 1861, p. 31. 
7- Ibid. p. so. 

8. Greeley, I. p. 481. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 27 

ernor, whose official existence and life even depended upon the 
result.^ This was equivalent to allowing the Governor to say 
whether the state should secede or not. Every one knew that if 
the result was not favorable to secession he would have the power 
to make it so. But whatever result the Governor might announce, 
it was absurd to suppose that the Confederate forces would evacuate 
the state, or that the Confederate Government would release from 
its service the Tennessee troops. The secret session of the Legis- 
lature and the Military League had bound the state and had turned 
it over to the control of the Confederate army which immediately 
took possession. To be prepared for any contingency, as well as 
to influence the vote as far as possible, tne number of Confederate 
troops in the state was greatly increased on the days immediately 
preceding the election. 

The election day passed quietly. Nearly 20,000 more votes 
were cast than at any previous election." Two propositions were 
voted upon, that of separation, and that of representation in the 
Confederate congress. Both were carried by slightly different ma- 
jorities. The following table shows the vote on the question of 
separation as given in the Governor's proclamation of June 24.^ 

Separation. No Separation. 

East Tennessee 14,780 32,923 

Middle Tennessee 58,265 8,198 

West Tennessee 29,127 6,117 

Military Camps 2,741 

Totals 104,913 47,238 

The Governor accompanied this announcement by his proclama- 
tion declaring all connection of Tennessee with the Federal Union 
dissolved. This proclamation completed the work of separation. 
Tennessee was now nominally an independent state. 

It will be seen by reference to the returns that seventy per cent 
of the vote against secession was cast in East Tennessee, which 
cast only thirty per cent of the entire vote. This difference of 

1. See ordinance, Acts, p. 16. 

2. Miller's Manual, 1861. This seems to give color to the statements of 
the Unionists that Confederate troops from other states voted. 

3. Moore's Reb. Rec. vol. II., Doc. n. 



28 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

sentiment was the result of natural and historical causes. Ten- 
nessee was composed of three grand divisions which were in sev- 
eral essentials so different as to be almost separate states. The 
citizens of one division spoke and thought of those of the others 
very much in the same manner as of the citizens of the adjoining 
' states.^ 

In topography and soil the difference of these divisions was very 
marked. East Tennessee consisted of rugged mountains and nar- 
row valleys; Middle Tennessee, of long mountain slopes and pla- 
teaux and undulating table-lands; West Tennessee, of broad alluvial 
plains. These conditions influenced the people in their attitude 
toward slavery. In East Tennessee, the ratio of slaves to whites 
was I to 12; in Middle Tennessee, i to 3; in West Tennessee, 3 to 5. 
If we particularize by counties, we find that in no county in East 
Tennessee was the ratio greater than i to 6, while in several coun- 
ties it was only i to 60, and in two-thirds of the division it ranged 
from I to 20, to I to 60. The greatest ratio in West Tennessee was 
2 slaves to i white, and this was true for one-third of the division.' 
Finally, there was a radical difference in the character, sentiments 
and traditions of thet people of the East and West Divisions which 
had been inherited from the original settlers. East Tennessee was 
settled at a time when hostile Indians inhabited the region in such 
numbers as to make life and property unsafe. Slave-labor did 
not seek such a home. The sturdy Scotch, Pennsylvania Dutch 
and the poorer people from Virginia and North Carolina were 
the first settlers. It was here that the first abolition society in 
America was organized, and the first abolition paper published.' 
West Tennessee was settled after the Indians had been removed 
beyond the Mississippi river, and by men from the sea-board who 
brought their slaves thither for larger enterprise. 

Such radical difference of sentiment made it unlikely that East 
Tennessee would submit to the domination of the rest of the state^ 
although out-voted two to one. As soon as it was known that 
the ordinances had been passed by the Legislature, a call was 
issued by the leading men of East Tennessee, chief among these, 

1. Hume Loyal Mountainers, p. 103. 

2. Census Reports of i860. 

3. New England Magazine, July, 1894. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 29 

Senator Andrew Johnson, for a convention to meet at Knoxville, 
May 30.'Delegates from all the counties of East Tennessee and 
from a few counties of Middle Tennessee came together that day, 
and formulated and published an address to the people of the state. 
They protested against secession as ruinous and heretical, and 
against the attempt of those in authority to override the deliberate 
judgment of the people expressed in the previous election. They 
declared that the Legislature had disregarded the rights of the 
people and had transcended its constitutional powers, in negotiating 
the Military League which they regarded as the only authority for 
arming the state. They appealed to the people to restore the state 
to its former position." But this address, as we have seen, did not 
have the effect to defeat the ordinance. While East Tennessee 
was protesting against the usurpation of the Legislature, West 
Tennessee fortified the Mississippi from Memphis to the Kentucky 
line, raised an army of 15,000 men under General Pillow, admitted 
into the state 8,000 troops from Mississippi, and sent several thou- 
sand troops to East Tennessee to suppress any insurrection or to 
repel any attack in that quarter.^ 

Ten days after the election, but before the result was known, 
the convention of East Tennessee met again, and this time at 
Greeneville, as it was unsafe at Knoxville on account of the number 
of Confederate troops there.^ Reaffirming the work done at Knox- 
ville, they protested against the want of freedom in the election and 
against the dishonesty of the count, and appointed O. P. Temple, 
John Netherland and James McDonald a committee to prepare a 
memorial to the General Assembly asking that East Tennessee, and 
such counties of Middle Tennessee as desired to cooperate, be 
allowed to withdraw and form a separate state. The convention 
then adjourned to meet at the call of any of its officers.^ They 
expected that call to come soon, for in case the Legislature refused 
to grant their petition, they meant to take things into their own 
hands. But it was after the lapse of three years, and under very 
different circumstances, that they were called together again. 

1. Moore's Reb. Rec. vol. II. Doc. 28. 

2. Daily Banner, June 2. 

3. Message of Gov. Harris, June 25, 1861. 

4. Moore Reb. Rec. II. Doc. 28. 

5. Banner, June 22, 1861 . 



30 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

The memorial, which the committee drew up and presented 
to the Legislature then in session, was referred to a committee of 
four from the Senate and eight from the House, but the Legis- 
lature adjourned in three days without taking further action.^ 

In case their petition was not granted, it was the intention of 
the leaders in East Tennessee to raise an army, place John Baxter 
at its head, seize the railroads and hold that part of the state for 
the Union by force of arms/ For this purpose, they secretly or- 
ganized the people,^ but before they could arrange for a general 
rising, the Confederates were in the state in such force that an 
attempt to hold the region would have been a desperate enterprise, 
and would undoubtedly have failed unless vigorously supported 
by the National troops, since the Confederate government was de- 
termined to hold it as long as possible. 

But no one can read the oiBcial correspondence of the 
period and not be impressed with the belief that a strong 
movement from Kentucky into East Tennessee would have 
been successful, and would have been the greatest possible 
blow to the Confederacy.^ This was President Lincoln's cherished 
plan, but he could never find a general daring enough to undertake 
it. A successful campaign in East Tennessee would have had a great 
effect upon the campaign then in progress in Virginia, and would 
have been a long step toward the capture of Richmond and the 
overthrow of the Confederacy. 

The Confederate Government was greatly alarmed over the 
condition of affairs in East Tennessee. They feared a gen- 
eral uprising, and to prevent this they established their 
camps of military instruction in that part of the state. They 
moved their troops stationed there from one neighborhood 
to another to prevent an organization of the opposition 
and to hold it in check. But afifairs constantly grew worse, and in 
July General Felix K. ZollicofTer was appointed to the command 
in East Tennessee, his former home, in the hope that 
his influence would quiet the people, he being regarded as a mod- 
erate man and much esteemed personally."* But this seems to have 
had little effect, as was shown by the result of the August election. 

1. House Journal, June 29, 1861. 

2. Speech of Nelson at convention, April 12, '64. Union, April 20, '64. . 
R. R. S. I., vol. II. p. 366. 
Ibid, p. 350. 
Ibid, p. 375- 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 3l 

By the election in June it was decided that the state should send 
representatives to the Confederate Congress. The election of these 
representatives was set for the first Thursday in August, 
the day on which foremerly Federal Congressmen had 
been chosen. In the four districts of East Tennessee 
the people would not vote for the Confederate candidates, 
but nominated and elected men to go to Washington. In 
the First District Thomas A. R. Nelson was elected, but on his way 
to Washington he was captured by Virginia Home Guards and 
taken to Richmond, where he was induced to 
swear to do nothing against the South if allowed to 
remain at home unmolested. Horace Maynard was elected in the 
Second District by a large majority, said to be 10,000,^ and was 
promptly admitted to a seat at the opening of Congress in Decem- 
ber. The Confederate candidates in these two districts acknowl- 
edged their defeat and declined seats in the Confederate Congress. 
The Union candidates in the Third and Fourth Districts, Mr. 
Bridges and Dr. Clements, were opposed by Messrs. Welcker and 
De Witt respectively. Here the vote was more equally di- 
vided."" Welcker and De Witt claimed that they were the only 
candidates legally before the people, and they were admitted to 
seats in the Confederate Congress. Dr. Clements made his way 
to Washington and his case was referred to the committee on elec- 
tions, which reported unanimously that they found in it the essen- 
tials of an election. The House adopted the report without debate 
and Dr. Clements was qualified January 13, 1862.' Mr. Bridges 
presented his credentials to Congress Feb. 23, 1863, within a week 
of the close of the session. For a year and a half he had been a 
prisoner in his own house and escaped tO' Washington by means of 
the underground railway. The House admitted him to a seat with- 
out referring his case to the committee.* 

The action of the people of East Tennessee so alarmed Governor 
Harris that he requested President Davis to send 14,000 additional 
troops into that part of the state." From this 
time Union men were suppressed into silence or hunted from 

1. Report of contested election cases, p. 466 ff. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Globe, Feb. 23, 1863. 



32 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

the state. Many thousands left the state and joined the Union 
army in Kentucky. 

So much of the history of this movement in East Tennessee has 
seemed necessary to an adequate understanding of the subsequent 
history. But it would lead us too far from our present purpose 
to go into the reign of confusion and terror which prevailed in 
that section during the next two years. The Confederates held 
the region till the fall of 1863.' How they were finally dislodged 
will be referred to in a subsequent chapter. 

The remaining history of Tennessee under the Secession Gov- 
ernment is military rather than political. The Legislature which 
met in adjourned session June 20, suspended the civil courts and 
the sale of property under execution, made it a crime to hold Federal 
office, wiped from the statutes all reference to the United States, 
and all penalties for offenses against the same; authorized the en- 
rollment in the state militia of all free colored males between the 
ages of 15 and 50; placed the resources of the state, both men and 
money, in the hands of the Governor, and adjourned sine die July 
1st." The Secession Legislature, elected in August, held three short 
sessions, but did nothing of a political nature.' 

Military preparations were in the hands of Governor Harris, who 
bent every effort toward the organization of the army and the col- 
lection of stores.* By July 20, the state had expended $2,225,890,' 
and had equipped 22,000 troops." The command of this force was 
turned over July 31 to General Leonidas Polk, C. S. A.,' then in 
command of the Confederate forces in the state.^ By September 
the state had already spent $5,000,000 on the army and had re- 
ceived nothing from the Confederacy," and this is only the beginning. 
On September 21, General A. S. Johnston made a requisition on 
Governor Harris for 30,000 additional troops equipped for the Con - 
federate service.'" The Governor immediately issued his proclama- 

1. For an account of these events see Hume's Loyal Mountaineers, also 
Brownlow's Book, pp. 258-370. 

2. Acts 2d. ex-sess. '61, p. yz- 



Oct. to Nov., '61; Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, '(i2\ Feb. 20 to Mar. 20. '62. 

R. R. S. I., Vol. IV., p. 2,(>T. 

Ibid, p. 2,1Z- 

Ibid, p. 372. 

Ibid, p. 368 and 385. 

Ibid, p. 431. 

Ibid, p. 402. 

Ibid, p. 417. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 33 

tion for the mobilization of the militia and the purchase or seizure of 
all the arms in the state. 

The active preparations of Tennessee and the presence of large 
armies on the border greatly alarmed the people of Kentucky, and 
the Governor of that state asked Governor Harris for some assur- 
ance that Kentucky would not be invaded. Accordingly a treaty 
was made between the states, in which Governor Harris promised 
that no troops should cross the line except by the invitation of the 
Governor of Kentucky. But the Confederate Government denied the 
power of Governor Harris to make such a treaty, and overrode the 
'"sovereignity" of Tennessee.^ The reason for this was soon seen when 
Gen. Polk was ordered to seize and fortify the Kentucky towns on the 
Mississippi. In September, Bowling Green was captured by General 
Buckner, and in October General Zollicofifer was ordered to ad- 
vance into Kentucky from East Tennessee. In the same month 
Forts Henry and Donelson were fortified and garrisoned. Up to the 
beginning of 1862, all efforts to dislodge the Confederates from Co- 
lumbus had failed, and at that time Tennessee lay seemingly se- 
cure behind a line of Confederate defences extending from Cumber- 
land Gap to the Mississippi River. On January 18, however, this 
line was broken by the defeat of General ZoUicofTer at Mill Springs. 
February 6, Fort Henry was evacuated and ten days later Fort 
Donelson surrendered. The Confederate forces hastily evacuated 
Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, and the State Government fled to 
Memphis. Governor Harris, calling the Legislature to meet there, 
made a great effort to arouse the people to repel the invaders. 
General Grant advanced up the Tennessee River and General Buell 
occupied Nashville, and advanced southward to Alabama. The 
Legislature fearing capture adjourned sine die, March 20, and took 
reftige with Governor Harris in Mississippi behind the Confederate 
lines. The Secession Government of Tennessee was at an end. 

I. Louisville Journal, July 20, i86i. 



CHAPTER 11. 

MILITARY GOVERNMENT. 

With the retreat of the Confederate army after the surrender of 
Fort Donelson, and the fight of the State Government from Nash- 
ville, a territory embracing 30,000 square miles was opened to 
Federal occupation, and a population of 1,000,000 souls was left 
without government and in imminent danger of a slave insurrec- 
tion. The establishment of some sort of government was abso- 
lutely necessary. To meet the emergency, President Lincoln, 
March 3, appointed Senator Andrew Johnson, a former governor 
of Tennessee, Military Governor, with the rank of brigadier-gen- 
eral. The military title was to indicate the nature of his appoint- 
ment as well as the character of his work. His government was 
to be a military government, which was at that time a term un- 
known to the history and laws, both of the state and of the nation. 

In international law the right to institute a military government 
is a right of every nation making war.^ It is the exercise of hos- 
tilities without unnecessary force.^ But the government established 
in Tennessee and other Southern States was not exactly of the 
sort contemplated by international law. It was a quasi-civil gov- 
ernment intended to show the people that the object of the war 
was to maintain the national supremacy, and that all measures 
were being used to facilitate the return of the people to their former 
allegiance.' To this end the Federal Government sought so far 
as possible to treat all persons as citizens of a common country. 
The character of the government, both in theory and practice, was as 
mild as circumstances would permit." To permit a people in such a 
condition to be governed in a regular manner by statutes and codes, 
to give them ofiicers able and willing to abide by existing laws, 
made by those whom they were to govern, was an act of mag- 
I 4 Wall, 142. 

2. 3 Coldwell, 554. 

3. Letter of Lincoln to Johnson, Nichoiay & Hay, Vol. VL, p. 350. 

4. R. R. S. L, Vol. VL, p. 717. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 35 

nanimity on the part of the Federal Government. Such a govern- 
ment, although founded on military power, conferred rights upon 
the people which they would not otherwise have enjoyed, and pro- 
tected them from unnecessary hardships. But. it required two 
sets of officers with overlapping powers which often led to conflicts 
and delays, and from a purely military point of view, the Military 
Governor could well have been dispensed with. The purpose of 
the government, however, was largely political. A helping hand 
was thereby to be given to the people to return to their allegiance 
under civil government. Besides, though the Governor was at 
times an embarrassment to the generals, he was, as a rule, useful 
to them in relieving them of civil duties. 

The appointment of Governor Johnson, although based on the 
laws of war, was in strict accord with the Crittenden resolutions 
of July 22, 1861, which were supposed to embody the wishes of 
Congress on the subject.' It was an important step in a consistent 
policy which these resolutions set forth and whose success many 
things favored so long as President Lincoln lived. Perhaps, also, 
the appointment of a Military Governor was not an extra-constitu- 
tional act. The Constitution makes it the duty of the President 
to suppress insurrection, and guarantees to every state a Republican 
form of government.'' The first object had been accomplished by 
the army. The second could only be performed by a union of civil 
and military powers in one person. 

It was the wish of President Lincoln that Governor Johnson 
should be as far as possible a real governor. In all ordinary cases 
he was to govern by the laws of the state." Only in extraordinary 
cases was he to use his military power. In not a few cases, how- 
ever, he was compelled to use force, but usually with such modera- 
tion and discretion as greatly to strengthen the Union cause. His 
duties were manifold, as may be seen from the following summary: 
He put the press and pulpit under military supervision, required all 
municipal officers to take the oath of allegiance, levied contribu- 
tions on the wealthy for the benefit of the poor, levied and col- 
lected taxes for the benefit of, the state, took military control of 
certain railroads and built others for military purposes, raised and 
equipped troops, issued military proclamations, declared the civil 
law in force in certain parts of the state and appointed officers of 
all grades to execute it, issued proclamations for elections, and gave 
advice to the people on all sorts of questions touching the re-organ- 
ization of the state. 

The appointment of Governor Johnson to this important office 

1. Crittenden Resolution, July 22, 1861. 

2. U. S. Const, Art. IV., Sec. 4. 

3. Letter to Johnson, Oct. 21, 1862, Nicholay & Hay, VI., p. 350. 



36 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

was a very fortunate one. He was a staunch supporter of the Union 
and had the full confidence of the Federal Government. No man in 
America better knew the political history and present condition of 
Tennessee. For thirty years he had held a prominent place in 
politics, and no man had served the state more faithfully."^ He 
entered political life as an advocate of the Constitution of 1834, 
which greatly abridged the influence of the large landholders. The 
next year he was sent to the Legislature, where he opposed the 
mania for internal improvements. This caused his defeat at the 
next election. He was returned again, however, in 1839. In 1840 
he made his reputation by stumping the state as an elector at large. 
In 1841 he was elected State Senator and was one of the "immortal 
13" who prevented the election of a Whig Senator by refusing to 
meet the House in joint session. He next served ten years in 
Congress, where he favored the annexation of Texas, and the Com- 
promise of 1850. In 1853, and 1855, he was elected Governor of 
Tennessee, and in 1857 he was sent to the U. S. Senate, where he 
gained a national reputation by his advocacy of the Homestead 
Law. He defended slavery in the Senate, December 12, 1859,' and 
was prominent in all debates, though he frequently stood alone, be- 
ing unable to go with the Southern Democrats or with the Repub- 
licans. He received the vote of the Tennessee delegation in the 
Charleston Convention, and supported Breckinridge in the fol- 
lowing canvass. In December, i860, however, he formally broke 
with the Southern men and determined to stand by the Union. He 
spoke with boldness against the secession leaders, and he was heard 
with profound attention on all questions touching the war policy. 
By him the Crittenden Resolutions were introduced in the Senate 
and in deference to his wishes they were adopted. When the 
Federal arms won back Tennessee all eyes turned toward him as 
the most suitable person to undertake its government. At the 
urgent request of President Lincoln he resigned his seat in the 
Senate to undertake a work nearer his heart. 

The cause he came to uphold never lacked his attention even in 
the smallest details. In undertaking the duties of Military Gov- 
ernor, he could never have felt that the position would add to 
his honors. It must be set down to his sense of duty and patriot- 
ism. He had already manifested a strong sympathy for the men 

I. Globe, Dec. 12, 1859. 



H 



& 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 37 

vTHo had been driven irom East Tennessee on account of their 
refusal to support the rebellion. He had assisted them in the 
formation of Camp Dick Robinson, and now he felt that he would 
be the proper person to attempt the restoration of a loyal govern- 
ment in the state. On the whole, the work of Goverjior Johnson is 
not given due credit by the people of Tennessee. ! The vigor of 
his action is still fresh in the minds of many who felt the weight 
of the authority he was always ready to exercise. lie was a man 
of powerful, even despotic, will, which often led him astray, but he 
was honest above reproach, which is proved by the fact that al- 
though given every opportunity to acquire great wealth, he retired 
from the governorship poorer than when he undertook it. 

Governor Johnson reached Nashville on the 12th of March and 
found affairs in great confusion. All government was gone, save 
that of martial law. In anticipation of Governor Johnson's com- 
ing, General Grant had issued an order, February 22, forbidding the 
courts to act under state authorities, and declaring martial law, 
until a number of citizens sufficient to maintain law and order 
should return to their allegiance. 

Although the secession forces had been beaten and the secession 
government practically overthrown, secession sentiment was every- 
where dominant and nowhere more so than in Nashville. The 
rebel citizens were defiant and offered every obstruction possible to 
the organization of a loyal government.' Governor Johnson met 
this spirit of opposition by imprisonment and lemoval beyond the 
Federal lines, and by placing the whole press under military con- 
trol. 

On the evening after his arrival Governor Johnson delivered an 
address to the people of Nashville which was afterwards printed 
and circulated throughout the state under the title of "An Appeal 
to the People of Tennessee."' In this he referred to the prosperity 
of the state under the Constitution, the disasters of secession, and 
the obligation of the President to suppress rebellion and insurrec- 
tion. He then spoke of the purpose of the war as expressed in 
the Crittenden Resolutions, of the Constitutional guarantee of a 
republican form of government to every state, from which the 
Federal Government could not be released by any act of the state 
itself, and said that he had been appointed, in the absence of the 

1. Amer. Cycle, 1861, p. T/6 

2. Am. Ann. Cyclo., 1882, p. 765. 



38 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

regular and established state authorities, as Military Governor for 
the time being, to preserve the public property of the state, to give 
to her citizens the protection of law actively enforced, and, to re- 
store her government to the same condition as before the existing 
rebellion. 

In this arduous undertaking he asked the aid of all persons 
willing to see a restoration of the former government and earnestly 
invited them to unite with him by counsel and co-operation to 
accomplish this great end. He proposed to appoint citizens of 
Tennessee to the offices of the state and counties, who would execute 
the functions of their respective offices until their places could be 
filled by the action of the people. The address closed by pro- 
claiming in most generous and patriotic terms the policy of the 
Government with respect to the people. The rights of all were 
to be respected, the protection of the Government, and redress of 
grievances granted. Those who had maintained their allegiance 
to the Union were to be honored, the erring and misguided wel- 
comed on their return. No merely vindictive policy would be 
adopted, though it might be necessary to punish conscious treason 
in high places. To those, who in a private, unofficial capacity had 
assumed an attitude of hostility to the United States, a full and 
complete amnesty for all past acts was offered, on the condition 
of their again yielding obedience to the laws. 

But patriotic and forbearing as this "Appeal" was, it fell short 
of winning the support of the great mass of the population of the 
state. They still hoped for and awaited the return of the Con- 
federate armies and continued their opposition to the authority of 
the United States. The policy of the Federal Government was to 
win back these people by mild treatment. But this only caused 
them to stand aloof, while a rigorous policy would have driven 
them into the arms of the government, or caused them to flee 
southward, where they would have done less harm to the Union. 

The work of re-organization was begun by the appointment 
of a provisional state government. Edward H. East was made 
Secretary of State, Joseph S. Fowley, State Comptroller, Horace 
Maynard, Attorney-General, and Edmund Cooper, Private Secre- 
tary and Confidential Agent of the Governor.' The next step was to 
secure the co-operation of members of the City Council of Nash- 
I. Union, April 27, '62. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 39 

ville, by requiring them to take the oath of allegiance to the United 
States. Some members refused on the ground that they had never 
heretofore taken such an oath. They were dismissed from office, 
arrested for treason, and other persons were appointed in their 
stead." By a resolution of the re-constructed council a similar de- 
mand was made of the teachers and school officers, both public and 
private, on pain of forfeiting their positions. All ministers were re- 
quired to take the oath, and six of them, refusing, were sent to Camp 
Chase.^ Other influential citizens on refusing to take the oath, were 
sent south on pain of being treated as spies if they returned.' In- 
duced by- fear of similar treatment or in sympathy with the easy 
terms of amnesty offered by the Governor, great numbers applied 
for pardon and permission to take the oath of allegiance. Parents 
came to intercede for their sons in the Rebel Army, and to ask the 
aid of the state in securing their discharge, pledging themselves 
for their loyalty and good behavior.* Letters came by hundreds 
from men captured at Fort Donelson, and elsewhere, asking the aid 
of Governor Johnson to secure their release from prison, promising 
in every case to take the oath and return home.* Petitions from in- 
fluential men came asking that Tennesseeans, prisoners of war 
should be allowed to return home on taking the oath, and not ex- 
changed, for that would necessitate their going again into the Con- 
federate Army." Men in various parts of the state were active in en- 
listing troops for the Union Army. A whole regiment was raised in 
Bedford County, before the end of March.' The hope was enter- 
tained that soon a larger number of Tennesseeans would volunteer 
in the Federal Army than were then in the Confederate Army." 

This revival of Union sentiment was largely due to the belief 
that the Confederacy had deserted Tennessee, after the battle of 
Shiloh, and that the state must make its own terms of peace with 
the Federal Government. So great was the improvement that Gov- 
ernor Johnson thought that the people of Nashville and Davidson 
County could be trusted to elect local officers. On the 23d of April, 
the Sheriff published a proclamation to open the polls for elections 
May 2.2! The Unionists took this as the signal to begin the restora- 
tion of the state to the Union. Two hundred citizens met at Nash- 
ville, May I, and signed a call, requesting those in favor of such 
action to meet at the Capital on the 12th." 

I. Union, April 2^, '62. 2. Am. Ann. Cyclo., 1862, p. 765. 3. Union, 
April 20, 1862. 4. Union, April 11, '(^2. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid, 
April 10. '62. 8. Ibid, April 10, '62. 9. Ibid, April 23, '62. 10. Ibid, 
May 4, '62. 



40 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

The convention met on the appointed day. A series of reso- 
lutions was adopted, declaring that the interests of Tennessee de- 
mand her immediate restoration to the Union, and inviting all citi- 
zens to co-operate to that end. A committee was appointed to se- 
cure the release of Tennesseeans, prisoners of war; to draft an ad- 
dress to the people; and to correspond with Unionists in other 
parts of the state. On this committee were appointed A. H. Hall, 
A. V. S. Lindsley, John Lellyett, Russell Houston, H. H. Harrison 
and M. M. Brien." The address which they published discussed the 
abstract right of secession, defended the conduct of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, showed the advantage of adhering to the Union, the cer- 
tain disaster of further following the Confederacy, and said that 
civil re-organization was the only way of ridding the state of 
military rule.^ 

The convention and the address did not, however, carry the 
pending election for the Unionists. Mr. M. M. Brien, the Union 
candidate for Judge of the Criminal Court, was defeated by a vote 
of 1,190 to 1,000. Governor Johnson gave the successful candidate 
his commission, but arrested him for treason and put him in prison." 
The results of this election did much to open the eyes of the Union- 
ists to the nature and extent of the opposition, which they had not 
up to this time fully appreciated.* 

To overcome this opposition the convention and the "Address" 
were followed by a vigorous campaign of agitation. During the 
months of May and June more than a score of rallies were held in 
as many dififerent counties, at which the speakers discussed the 
whole field of local and national politics." Such men as ex-Governor 
Brown, ex-Governor Campbell, Colonel Stokes, and Mr. Wisener 
were leaders in the movement. Governor Johnson gave them his 
earnest support and frequently took part in person." These meet- 
ings were intended to crystallize the Union sentiment, preparatory 
to some step toward practical restoration. The fall of Memphis and 
the advance of the Union Armies to Corinth and Huntsville, with 
the capture of Cumberland Gap, and the prospect of clearing East 
Tennessee of Confederate forces, again raised the hopes of the 
Unionists. If the Union Armies had continued to advance, there is 
little doubt that elections would have been held within a few 
I. Union, May 15, 1862. 2. Ibid, June 4, 1862. Am. Ann. Cycle, 
1862, p. 764. 3. Ibid, June 4 and 5, '62. 4. Ibid, May 25, 1862. 5. 
The most important were those at Lebanon, Shelbyville, Murfreesboro, 
Pulaski, Columbia, Gallatin, Lewisburg, etc. 6. Union, June 4 ancf S, '62. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 41 

months, and the State Government in all probability would have 
been restored. 

But a movement was preparing which was to put a stop to re- 
construction for the time being. Suddenly guerrilla bands under 
Morgan, Forest and others, began to scour the southern part of the 
state, seizing horses, cattle and stores, burning bridges, cutting 
railroads and telegraphs, killing prominent Unionists and unex- 
pectedly falling upon small detachments of Federal troops. July 
13, Murfreesboro, with its garrison, was taken, and on the 19th, 
Clarksville was captured.' Lebanon and Gallatin were captured 
about the same time, and on the 20th, Morgan made an attack on 
Edgefield Junction and captured pickets within sight of Nashville.^ 
The Capital was surrounded by Confederate garrisons at a distance 
of thirty miles. These movements were preliminary to Bragg's in- 
vasion of Kentucky. The series of movements inaugurated by this 
invasion stopped political organization, until Bragg's retreat to 
Chattanooga in the summer of 1863. Governor Johnson had to 
turn suddenly from political agitation to the defense of Nashville. 
This invasion would have been prevented if General Halleck had 
taken the advice of Governor Johnson. In March, Governor John- 
son had protested against the withdrawal of troops southward, and 
prophesied and invasion and insurrection as a result.^ His repeated 
demands for troops to guard and protect the state* were answered 
by General Halleck with the assurance that there was no possible 
danger."* When General Halleck at last learned that Governor John- 
son was right it was too late to prevent the invasion. 

General Buell prepared to fall back into Kentucky and Governor 
Johnson fearing that Tennessee would be given up ,asked that Gen- 
eral Thomas and his division be left to hold Nashville." When this 
was refused, he wrote the President, accusing General Buell of inca- 
pacity and demanding his removal.' Buell continued to fall back and 
Nashville was under siege from August till December. It was 
saved only by the determination and personal efforts of Governor 
Johnson, who held it against the wish of General Buell who con- 
sidered it contrary to the ordinary rule of war to attempt to hold an 
isolated position so far in advance of the main army. 

The effect of all this was to raise Governor Johnson in the esteem 

I. Am. Ann. Cycle, 1862, p. y^ij. 2. Ibid. 3. R. R. S. I. Vol. X., 
p. 181. 4- Ibid, Vol. XVI., Part II., p. 531. 5. Ibid, p. 22. 6. Ibid, 
p. 516. 7. Ibid, Vol. X., p. 129. 



42 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSE'E-. 

of the President and Secretary Stanton, both for his foresight and 
his heroic defense. 

While this campaign was in progress there was a poHtical move- 
ment in West Tennessee which deserves narrating. On the i8th 
of October, President Lincoln recommended the holding of elec- 
tions for Congressmen in certain parts of Tennessee, and asked the 
military commanders to give their assistance in the matter. The 
citizens of the Ninth and Tenth Districts, composing West Tennes- 
see, nominated candidates and set the 13th of December as the day 
for election unless another day should be named by Governor John- 
son. Governor Johnson on the, 8th of December issued his procla- 
mation, naming the 29th as the day for elections. The proclama- 
tion failed to reach some of the precincts before the 13th, and in 
these the elections were held. A raid of General Forrest on the 
28th caused General Hurlburt to postpone the elections set for the 
next day. Many precincts, however, did not get his order and 
opened the polls. On the result of these elections Mr. Hawkins 
claimed a seat in Congress from the Ninth District. Probably 
1,900 votes were cast. An unofficial person certified that 700 were 
cast for Mr. Hawkins in one county. General Sullivan certified to 
the result in another county. The House Committee on elections 
reported that they had tried to find some way to give effect to this 
effort of the people to secure representation, but they had not been 
able to bring the case under any of the rules endorsed by the House 
in other cases. Mr. Hawkins, therefore, was not admitted to a 
seat. There is no record of the election in the Tenth District.' 

The campaign inaugurated by Bragg's invasion was 
ended by the battle of Murfreesboro, January i, 1863. For 
six months after that battle the armies of General Rosecrans 
and General Bragg lay facing each other south of Nashville, the 
one extending from Murfreesboro to Franklin, the other extending 
from Manchester to Lewisburg. The chief object of each vvas to 
prevent the other from taking part in the campaign aroimd Vicks- 
burg. General Bragg probably had additional reasons for remain- 
ing in Tennessee, in his desire to hold the state until after the Au- 
gust elections, and in the fear that the Tennessee troops would de- 
sort or mutiny if he voluntarily left the state. It was not until the 

I. Contested election cases, House of Rep. 37th Cong., 32 Sess., 
No. 46. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 43 

last of June that Rosecrans began his advance. During all this time 
the Confederate conscript law was enforced in all parts of Tennessee 
where the Confederate scouting parties could go. East Tennessee 
sufifered particularly in this respect.' But even where the national 
forces were nominally supreme, men were arrested and carried off 
every day. 

August, 1863, was the time for the election of Congressmen arid 
State officers in Tennessee. Both parties wished to reap any ad- 
vantage that might be gained from these elections. Governor Har- 
ris, from his headquarters in Bragg's Army, issued his proclama- 
tion for an election, expressing the hope that before election day 
the Federal forces would be driven from the state. On June IJ7, 
the secession nominating convention met at Winchester. It is 
doubtful whether a single member of the convention had been au- 
thorized to represent the people. Fully two-thirds of those present 
were from counties within the Federal lines. Forty were from 
Nashville and twenty-five from Memphis. The other third con- 
sisted largely of army officers. Several private persons came as 
proxies for counties which they had not been near for many months. 
One man was proxy for at least six counties, and "military proxy" 
for another — whatever that may mean. The work of the convention 
was soon done. Robert L. Carruthers was nominated for Governor 
and a full Congressional ticket was put in the field.' It was hoped 
that this would inspire the secessionists within the Federal lines with 
greater audacity, and at the same time deter the neutral and pre- 
vent any attempts of the Union men to re-organize the state. 

Of course the nominees of the convention were elected at the 
ensuing elections, but who voted for them I cannot say. It is to 
be presumed that the vote was that of the army with perhaps a 
slight vote from Franklin and adjacent counties. The Congress- 
men went on to Richmond and took their seats, but Mr. Carruthers 
was never inaugurated Governor.' Before the time for that formal- 
ity came, Brigg's army had retreated into Georgia, and there was 
not a Confederate post within the state. 

The vjviionists made no effort to hold a convention until General 
Rosecram had begun his advance. On June 20th, the Central Com- 
mittee published a call for a convention to meet July i.* On that 
day the c- avention met and organized by electing Major W. B. 

1. R. R. S. I., Vol. XVI., pp. 785 and 934- 

2. Union, June 25, 1863. 

3. Miller's Manual, 1864. 

4. Press, June 20, 1863. 



44 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

Lewis, chairman. All persons who would take the oath of alle- 
giance to the United States and the Constitution of Tennessee, were 
admitted to seats. Every 5,000 white inhabitants were allowed one 
vote. Messrs. Brownlow, Houston, Fowler, Spence and Bosson 
were appointed a committee on Federal relations. Each division 
of the state, however, had its own program. West Tennessee 
wished above all to take some steps toward removing the restric- 
tions on commerce, now that the Mississippi was opened. Middle 
Tennessee was especially interested in tht, immediate restoration 
of the Civil Government in the state. East Tennessee favored a 
continuance of the Military Government until the state should be 
cleared of the Coniederate Armies. After long deliberation, the last 
idea prevailed and all resolutions were tabled. "^ 

Many reasons were given in support of this action. Some 
doubted the authority of the convention, and feared that a similar 
convention of dififerent men would meet and take different action, 
which would lead to anarchy. Others feared the inability of the 
State to protect itself and the Legislature from the raids of guerrilla 
bands. Still others feared to lay themselves liable to the charge 
of revolution and sought some legal and constitutional mode of re- 
organization. The men from East Tennessee wished to delay the 
re-organization until their section of the state should be freed from 
Confederate forces, otherwise they feared that they should be ex- 
cluded from all part in the government of the state. They preferred 
Military Government by one of their own party to a Civil Govern- 
ment by the other divisions of the state, excluding themselves. 

It was very fortunate that the convention decided to allow mat- 
ters to go on as they were. Any attempt at that time to organize the 
state by electing a Governor and Legisalture would only have in- 
creased the anarchy. There was no safety for Civil Government 
when every county and town was liable at any hour to be visited by 
a band of guerrillas. Besides, the people were not yet ready to ac- 
cept the results of the war, even then apparent. They were still act- 
ing on the principles of the Crittenden resolutions," and demanded 
that slavery be maintained. 

While this convention was in session came the news of the battle 
of Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg.^ Then followed the 
simultaneous retreat of Lee and Bragg. It was commonly believed 

1. Union and Press, July i and 7, 1863. 

2. Speeches made in the convention opposed abolition. 

3. Press, July 5, 1863. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 45 

that Lee's overthrow was complete and that the Confederacy was 
nearing its end. The demand for re-org-anization was louder than 
ever before. General Hurlburt, writing- President Lincoln from 
Memphis, August ii, 1863, said that Tennessee was ready by over- 
whelming majorities to repeal the acts of secession, establish a fair 
system of gradual emancipation and tender herself back to the 
Union.^ He recommended that Governor Johnson provide for an 
election of members of the Legislature, and that the Legislature call 
a convention which would, in his opinion, end the work in sixty 
days. Early in September, Chattanooga and Knoxville were evacu- 
ated and President Lincoln anxiously reminded Governor Johnson 
that that was the time to inaugurate a movement for a loyal state 
government. The manner of inauguration was to be left to Gov- 
ernor Johnson and his friends in Tennessee, but the result must be 
such as to give the control of the state and its representatives in 
Congress to the Union party, otherwise the struggle for the state 
would be profitless. If the re-organization should be the work 
of such men only as could be trusted for the Union, the Govern- 
ment so organized wowld be recognized as being the one Republican 
in form to> be guaranteed to the state, and to be protected against 
invasion and domestic violence.^ 

Some still doubted the authority of Governor Johnson to act in 
political matters. In order to remove this doubt and to show the 
attitude of the Federal Government toward reconstruction, Presi- 
dent Lincoln, September 19th, gave Governor Johnson an additional 
commission which authorized him to exercise all powers necessary 
and proper to enable the loyal people of the state to present such a 
form of government as wovild entitle the state to the Federal 
guarantee therefor.' 

Military operations continued favorable. November 25, Bragg 
was driv(Mi 1 jr.; v'.ission Ridge. December 4, Longstreet retreated 
from before Knoxville. There was now no longer any Confederate 
force in the state. The President, thinking the time had at last 
come for the re-organization of a Civil Government, issued on the 
8th of December, his proclamation of amnesty and provisional gov- 
ernment, which set forth a plan for the restoration of Civil Govern- 
ment,^ and gave the promise of the President to recognize the gov- 
ernments formed in accordance with this plan. A general amnesty 

1. Nicholay & Hay, Vol. VIII., p. 440- 

2. Ibid, p. 441. 

3. Report of joint Com. on Reconstruction, p. 5. 

4. Union, Dec. 15,1863. 



46 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

was offered to all persons (except certain specified classes), who had 
directly or by implication taken part in the rebellion, with restoration 
of all rights and property, except slaves, upon the condition of tak- 
ing the oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and promising to sup- 
port the acts of Congress and the proclamations of the President 
respecting slavery. The persons excepted were those who had 
left judicial offices or seats in Congress to take part in the rebellion, 
and all officers in the army and navy above the rank of Colonel and 
Lieutenant respectively. 

The proclamation further said that whenever a number of per- 
sons equal to one-tenth of the number of votes cast at the Presi- 
dential election in i860, being qualified voters by the laws of the 
state immediately before the Rebellion, and having taken the oath 
and kept it inviolate, should establish a state government. Republi- 
can in form, such government would be recognized as the true gov- 
ernment of the state, and the state should receive the benefits of 
the constitutional guarantee therefor. The proclamation expressly 
declared that the Executive claimed no right to insure to the re- 
organized state a representation in Congress, which matter he re- 
garded as being exclusively the province of the two Houses. The 
President recited as authority for such a proclamation the clause 
in the Constitution which provides for reprieves and pardons, sec- 
tion 13 of the Act of July 17, 1862, an act to suppress insurrection, 
and also that clause of the Federal Constitution which guarantees 
to every state in the Union a Republican form of government. 

This plan received the approval of every man of influence in the 
state.'' For once it seemed that the President, the Governor and the 
people were in accord. This favorable turn of affairs was improved 
by the Unionists of Nashville. The "Union League," a political 
club of the Capital, took the initiative by calling a mass-meeting in 
Nashville, January 21, 1864."" This meeting adopted resolutions 
recognizing the authority and duty of the President, or his agents, 
to secure to the loyal people of the state a Republican form of 
government, recommending Governor Johnson to arrange for a 
constitutional convention whenever he thought all parts of the state 
could be represented, and pledging themselves to vote for delegates 
in favor of immediate and universal emancipation. 

Everything looked so favorable that Governor Johnson decided 

1. Press, Jan. 8, 1864. Letter from E. H. Ewing. 

2. Union, Jan. 22, 1864. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 47 

to begin at once. Accordingly on the 26th, he issued his proclama- 
tion authorizing elections for local officers wherever such elections 
could be held.' All white males, twenty-one years old, and six 
months' residents of the state were to be allowed to vote on taking 
the oath of allegiance. Inasmuch as these elections were to be 
held in Tennessee as a state of tlie Union, the Governor declared 
that the enemies of the United States would not be allowed to vote, 
or to hold office. On the 27th, appeared a proclamation concerning 
pardon and amnesty, and giving directions to those who wished to 
take the oath.^ But things were not to move ofT so smoothly. Good 
will did not go hand in hand with peace. 

These proclamations inaugurated the work of re-organization 
which it seems safe to say would have resulted in success, but for an 
act of Governor Johnson in requiring an oath different from that 
of the President's amnesty proclamation, and supposed to be much 
more severe. He did this in deference to the wishes of his friends 
in East Tennessee who found fault with the extreme liberality of 
the Federal Government to the repentant rebels, placing them in 
the same category with men always loyal. It was galling to these 
men, officers and soldiers in the Union Army, to go to the polls 
with men who had fought in the Rebel Army.^ 

Moreover, a contest arose as to who were citizens under the 
terms of the Governor's proclamation. Attorney-General Maynard 
decided that as all who had taken part in the Rebellion had been 
expatriated, their citizenship began with their taking the amnesty 
oath.* As the Governor's proclamation required a voter to be six 
months a citizen of the state, these amnestied persons could not 
vote at the March elections. The additional oath and this decision 
of the Attorney-General gave rise to a controversy which effectually 
paralyzed the whole movement, and brought new protests and ap- 
peals to the President. One Judge, Warren Stokes of Cheatham 
County, in doubt as to whether he would be justified in refusing the 
right of franchise to amnestied men, applied to President Lincoln 
for instructions.^ The President replied that in county elections they 
would better stand by Governor Johnson's plan, otherwise there 
would be conflict and confusion. A week later, the President tele- 
graphed Judge East, Secretary of State, that he could see no con- 
flict between the oaths, and no reason why any honest person should 

1. Dispatch, Jan. 30, 1864. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Nicholay & Hay, Vol. VIII., p. 443. 

4. Dispatch, Feb. 12, 1864. 

5. Raymond, Life of Lincoln, p. 596. 



4S SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

hesitate to subscribe to the latter, having taken the former. He 
was entirely satisfied with Governor Johnson's plan.^ 

The proposed election was duly held March 5. But as Union 
men did not think that they should be required to take the prescribed 
oath, and as amnestied men were not to be allowed to vote if they 
did take the oath, little was done. Such meagre returns as have 
ever been made public, afford insufficient data for historical conclu- 
sions. As an election it was a failure. Soldiers six months in the 
State voted and citizens staid at home. All who voted subscribed 
to the oath imposed by the majority party. The Union, the organ 
of Governor Johnson, confessed that what was called an election 
was only a serious farce.^ 

Doubtless, however, the event was influential in confirming and 
renewing the faith of loyalists. Perhaps it had a greater result in 
drawing the attention of repentant Rebels to the chance it afforded 
to rehabilitate themselves in their political rights through the Presi- 
dent's amnesty proclamation. We may infer that the matter created 
some inquiry, for the President, March 26, issued a supplementary 
proclamation, defining and explaining that of the previous 8th of 
December, excluding from its provisions prisoners of war in confine- 
men or on parole, or prisoners held for other ofifenses.^ 

But the failure of these elections was the beginning of better 
things. Failures were henceforth to be things of the past. A move- 
ment now started which led by successive steps to the re-organiza- 
tion of the state. At last, the state having been freed from Con- 
federate troops, the imperturbable Union leaders of East Tennessee 
were ready to act. Disgusted at the failure of the other divisions to 
take part in the elections, they again talked of separation and of 
forming a new state, as West Virginia had done. For this purpose 
they called together the convention which met at Greenville, June, 
1 86 1, and which had adjourned to meet at the call of any of its 
ofificers, expecting soon to undertake the government of East Ten- 
nessee. It met now in strict conformity to the provisions made then. 
On the 15th of March three Vice-Presidents, William Heiskell, John 
Murphy and John Williams published a call for a meeting at Knox- 
ville, April 12, and asked all counties to fill vacancies in their dele- 
gations.^ The meeting was called for the purpose of taking steps to- 
ward forming a separate state, but before it convened, other plans 

1. Nicholay & Hay, Vol. VIII., p. 442. 

2. Union, March 9, 1864. 

3. Abraham Lincoln, Complete works, Vol. II, p. 504. 

4. Dispatch, March 17, 1864. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 49 

were formed and separation was not mentioned. The more import- 
ant work of governing all Tennessee was the end for which the 
leaders of East Tennessee thenceforth worked. 

On the morning of April 12, nearly 200 delegates from twenty- 
five counties met at Knoxville.' The fact that this was a represent- 
ative body chosen before secession, and the only organized political 
factor which livetC through the revolution, gave it a prestige and 
an air of legality which no previous meeting had had. The conven- 
tion was divided on the question of slavery, one party still standing 
on the principle of the Crittenden resolutions, the other demanding 
complete and immediate emancipation. Though they argued the 
matter several days they were unable to agree and the matter was 
laid on the table." They were unanimous, however, in indorsing 
Lincoln and Johnson for President and Vice-President, in recom- 
mending that the state should send delegates to the Baltimore Na- 
tional Convention, and in appointing a Central Committee to take 
charge of all political afifairs of the state. The last was the 
important thing and the real turning point in the history of the re- 
organization of the state. Within two weeks this committee issued 
a call for a state convention at Nashville, May 30, to choose dele- 
gates to the National Convention at Baltimore.'' The delegates to 
the state convention were to be chosen by the counties of the 28th. 

The delegates to the National Convention were chosen on the 
30th, and instructed to cast the vote of Tennessee for Lincoln and 
Johnson.* They went on to Baltimore and after some delay were ad- 
mitted to seats." The action of the National Convention in aclmitting 
these delegates and in nominating Governor Johnson for Vice-Presi- 
dent was looked upon as an acknowledgment by the people of the 
United States that Tennessee was still a member of the Union. This 
act so encouraged the Central Committee that they began immedi- 
ately to plan to cast the vote of the state in the ensuing Presi- 
dential election." 

An election, however, was a more serious matter than a conven- 
tion. To hold an election they must get the consent of the Gover- 
nor, who alone could issue the writs authorizing it. Besides, they 
might be outvoted, in which case the vote of the state, if counted 
at all, would be counted against their candidates. They also feared 
the result of an election on the progress of local re-organization. 

I. Am. Ann. Cycle, 1864; "Tennessee." Dispatch, April 20, 1864. 
2 Dispatch, June 20, 1864. 3. Union, May 6, 1864. 

4. Dispatch, May 31, 1864. 

5. Houghton's Am. Pol., p. 367. 

6. Letter of Lincoln to Johnson, Oct. 20, 1862, Nicholay & Hay, Vol. 
VI., p. 350. 



50 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

In doubt on these points, the Central Committee asked the leading 
men of the state to meet them in conference at Nashville, August 2/ 
This conference unanimously agreed to call a convention to meet in 
Nashville, September 5, to consider the general condition of the 
country, the means of re-organizing Civil Government in Tennessee, 
and the expediency of holding a Presidential election.^ 

This convention was the first which East Tennesseeans had at- 
tended in force. It is important both for the work it accomplished, 
and as marking the widening diflerences among the Unionists of the 
state. For several months there had been differences among the 
leaders which were now so emphasized as to form the beginnings of 
two political parties. 

The Radical Party, or what is afterwards so called, was com- 
posed of Union soldiers, who had enlisted at the beginning of the 
war, and for three years had been fighting their way back home. 
Since the Federal occupation of East Tennessee, they had been sta- 
tioned there to defend and protect that section. Three regiments of 
these troops sent delegates for thirty-three counties.' With these 
men were associated most of the Union leaders in the former con- 
ventions, nearly all of whom had been refugees from the state 
during the secession government. The leaders of this party were 
men of little experience in politics, men of war rather, whom the 
stirring events of the war had brought to the top. 

The Conservative Party consisted of those who had accepted 
secession, though voting against it, together with those who had 
afterward accepted amnesty. They were slave-holders for the most 
part, but men who earnestly desired the defeat of the Rebellion and 
the restoration of the Union. The leaders of this party, mostly 
farmers, were modest and unaggressive. 

These parties differed essentially in their ideas of the conduct 
of the war and its results.* The Radicals desired the war to go 
on to the complete overthrow of the Confederacy. It had done its 
worst for them and they sought revenge on those who had brought 
it on. They wanted others to suffer as they had suffered. They 
wanted to destroy the influence of the wealthier classes by the com- 
plete destruction of slavery. This alone, to them, was justice. They 
dreaded an armistice lest some compromise might be made to save 
a remnant of slavery. The Conservatives on the other hand, con- 

1. Union, July 20, 1864. 

2. Dispatch, Aug. 3, 1864. 

3. Dispatch, Sept. 8, 1864. 

4. Noted men of the South, p. 172. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. Si 

demned the extreme measures of the administration. They feared 
that the constitution would be permanently impaired unless the 
war ended in a compromise. If the war should be fought to a 
finish they feared that the rights of the states, North and South 
alike, would die with the expiring Confederacy. They wished to re- 
organize Tennessee under its present Constitution, and leave the 
questions of emancipation and Constitutional amendment to be 
dealt with by the State Legislature after re-organization. As most 
of these men were slave-holders, it is probable that they were in- 
fluenced by the hope of saving a remnant of the institution by the 
adoption of gradual emancipation. It was the weakness of this 
party that it advocated only what the Confederates were willing to 
accept. 

If this had been a mere nominating convention, only the Radicals 
would have been eligible to seats, and there would, therefore, have 
been no opportunity for a conflict. But the meeting had been 
called to consider also the general condition of the countiy, and the 
means of re-organizing Civil Government.' These were subjects 
which interested every man, and the committee had urged the peo- 
ple to send full delegations. 

The report of the committee oh credentials admitted to seats in 
the convention all unconditional Union men, who were for all the 
measures of the Federal Government for supressing the Rebellion.^ 
Unconditional Union men was only another term for Radicals, and 
this gave them a majority in the convention. 

Mr. D. B. Thomas tried to i ^gain the ground lost by the Con- 
servatives in this contest, by asking the convention to take an oath 
to support the Constitution of the state, which meant the endorse- 
ment of slavery.^ This brought East Tennesseeans to their feet.* 
Colonel Bridges moved to lay the resolution on the table. Colonel 
Crawford said that in every convention, Secessionists had introduced 
such resolutions. Colonel Hauck would never swear to support 
the Constitution of Tennessee, which was lit only for slaves. Every 
constitutional man, was, in his opinion, a Secessionists. The resolu- 
tion was finally referred to the business committee. But the victory 
was only a nominal one. The Radicals had control of the business 
committee and the resolution was as effectually disposed of as if it 
had been tabled. 

1. Dispatch, Aug. 12, 1864. 

2. Ibid, Sept. 6, 1864. 

3. Acts of Ex-Session of 1866, p. 31. 

4. Dispatch, Sept. 6, 1864. 



52 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

The second day was taken up in deciding the purpose of the 
convention. Colonel Crawford moved that an electoral ticket be 
placed before the people. Mr. Thomas moved that the convention 
undertake the work of re-organizing the state. The second resolu- 
tion was laid on the table, and the first adopted without reference. 
Thereupon, Mr. Thomas and many of his party withdrew from the 
convention' and the Radicals carried their measures without opposi- 
tion. After making provision for registration of voters, requiring 
them to take the iron-clad oath, and appointing a list of Presidential 
electors, the convention adjourned. 

This convention was the beginning of the determined policy of 
the Radical Party to carry matters with a high hand. By forcing 
National party-politics upon a convention called to organize civil 
government, they produced a rupture among the friends of Union. 
This rupture, however, showed them their strength, and taught 
them that they could do whatever they wished, if they were only 
sufficiently audacious. 

The convention had done its work. It was necessary for the 
Governor to take the lead in what remained to be done. On the 
15th of September the Governor issued a proclamation setting forth 
his plan of local re-organization.^ Elections were to be held where it 
was possible to hold them; elsewhere officers were to be appointed 
by himself. These officers were to follow the laws and Constitution 
of the state as they existed previous to 1861, in all cases where it 
would be expedient to do so. All officers were to take the oath, 
formulated by the convention, and negroes were to be tried in the 
courts by the laws governing free persons of color. This govern- 
ment would continue, he said, until the people acknowledged their 
allegiance to the United States. Having laid down the basis upon 
which he would restore civil government, he earnestly appealed to 
the people to assist in the important work, and threatened to banish 
from the state, those who continued to oppose the authority of the 
United States. 

But Governor Johnson still hesitated to issue the proclamation 
authorizing Presidential electioins. He feared the effect of a party 
contest upon the re-organization of civil government. Not even 
the desire to have the vote of his own state counted for himself in 
the coming election, could induce him to endanger the success of his 

1. Union, Sept. 7, 1864. 

2. Dispatch, Sept. 6, 1864. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 53 

local policy. He continued to hold this view until the close of Sep- 
tember, and would unquestionably have held it till election day but 
for the action of the Conservative Party. Some days after the ad- 
journment of the Nashville convention, a number of the men who 
had withdrawn from it, and others who had refused to take part in 
it, met and put in the field a list of McClellan electors, and made 
all arrangements to hold an election, with or without the Governor's 
consent.' The fear that the vote of these electors would be counted 
for McClellan, induced Governor Johnson to issue, September 30, 
the proclamation hitherto withheld.' 

The oath prescribed in the March elections was thought not to 
be strict enough. The one now prescribed by the Governor was ex- 
traordinary and indeed iron-clad. The voters were to take oath, 
not only that they were active friends of the Union, but that they 
would oppose all armistices and negotiations fo." peace until the 
constitution and laws, and proclamations made in pursuance thereof, 
should be established over all the people of every state and ter- 
ritory, and that they would heartily assist the loyal people in what- 
ever measures they should adopt. 

The oath was altogether too searching for recently made loyal 
men, and was meant to deter all men from voting the McClellan 
ticket. The afBant was required to swear that he would "cordially 
oppose all armistices or negotiations for peace." The Chicago 
platform of 1864 demanded "that immediate efforts be made for 
a cessation of hostilities." The taking of this oath amounted to 
making each voter swear to vot2 for Lincoln and Johnson electors. 
Of course such a test oath met with opposition from every Con- 
servative editor and orator in the state. The McClellan electors 
prepared a protest which they sent by one of their number to be 
laid before the President. In this protest they declared that the 
proclamation of the Governor violated the laws of the state by 
changing the manner of choosing electors, and by changing the 
qaulifications of voters. They further declared that the oath, form- 
ulated by a partisan assembly in no wise representative of the people 
of Tennessee, was a violation of the terms of the President's amnesty 
proclamation. 

Mr. Lellyett, who bore the protest, reached Washington and 
presented it to the President, October 15th. The President was evi- 

1. Press, Oct. i, 1864. 

2. Dispatch, Sept. 27, 1864. 



54 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

dently not in his usual amiable mood that morning. He asked Mr. 
Lellyett how long it took him and the New York politicians to con- 
coct the paper. Mr. Lellyett assured him that none but Tennes- 
seeans had known of it. The President then said that he expected 
to let the friends of McClellan conduct their side of the contest in 
their own way, and that he would manage his side in his way.' He 
would give no other answer at the time, but later sent a letter 
to Mr. Lellyett and the protestants, saying that he could do nothing 
with the matter, either to sustain the plan or revoke or modify it.* 
October 29th, the protestants in a long reply to the President in 
which they charged Governor Johnson with complicity in breaking 
up McClellan meetings, withdrew from the contest.' Whether the 
President took the right course in this matter is of small concern. 
Probably he foresaw that Congress would reject the vote. It was 
important, above all things, however, that he should maintain the 
friendly relations between himself and Governor Johnson. 

Details of the election which followed are very meagre. Despite 
the withdrawal of the McClellan electors, a few votes were cast for 
them. In Nashville a small vote was cast, 1,317 for Lincoln, 25 for 
McClellan. The Tenth Regiment of Infantry cast 704 votes — a 
unanimous vote — for Lincoln. Memphis gave 614 votes for Lin- 
coln, 26 for McClellan. At Gallatin, Lincoln received 107, McClel- 
lan 12.* The Lincoln and Johnson electors were everywhere success- 
ful, but when Congress met to count the electoral vote, the vote of 
Tennessee was thrown out by joint resolution. The President 
promptly signed the resolution, and did it in such a manner as to 
disarm the opposition in Congress.^ 

The result of this contest was two-fold, first to develop and 
bring to light, a decided difference of opinion and feeling among the 
Unionists, as shown by the two Presidential electoral tickets, ai^i 
secondly to teach the Radicals that they were in a decided majority 
in voting if a test oath were required. In any election for state of- 
fiers they might hope to win. This was important in view of the 
fact that a state election now became necessary, as Governor John- 
son had been elected Vice-President and would soon be called from 
the state. They, therefore, resolved to take immediate steps to 
choose his successor. 

Again it was the East Tennesseeans who took the initiative. 

1. McPherson History of War of Rebellion, p. 425. 

2. Press, Oct. 28, 1864. 

3- Ibid, Oct. 31, 1864. 

4- Ibid, Nov. 29, 1864. 

5- Globe, Jan. 30, 1865. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 55 

Scarcely was the result o ftlie presidential election known when the 
Union Committee of East Tennessee issued a call, November 12th, 
for a preliminary state convention to meet in Nashville on the 19th 
of December/ In making this call they said they were led to do so 
by a large vote cast at the recent presidential election. They evi- 
dently counted on all this vote to sustain them in whatever measures 
they should adopt. The convention was to be a primary assembly 
of the people and was intended only to provide for a constitutional 
convention to meet afterwards."" The call is published said, "If 
you cannot meet in your counties come on your own responsibility." 
The committees of the other divisions of the state were asked to 
publish the call, and the old Knoxville convention was called to- 
gether again to appoint delegates to the proposed state convention. 

But before the day arrived for the convention, Hood's Army had 
entered the state and the battles of Franklin and Nashville had been 
fought. On December 9, however, while Hood's Army lay before 
Nashville, the committee of Middle Tennessee, knowing that a 
convention was out of the question then, and hoping that Hood 
v/ould soon be driven from the state, postponed the convention till 
January 8, in commemoration of the battle of New Orleans.* They 
requested the committees of the other divisions to publish similar 
notices which was done. On the 15th and i6th of December, Hood 
was routed before Nashville and his shattered army was driven from 
the state, and the way made clear for the meeting of the convention. 

Accordingly, on the morning of January 9 (the 8th being Sun- 
day), the convention met in the Capitol. Colonel Sam Rogers was 
chosen President. On taking the chair the President said that the 
design of the meeting was to nominate delegates to a state con- 
stitutional convention which should undertake the work of re-or- 
ganizing the State Government.^ For this purpose he invited to 
seats in the convention all Union soldiers and all others who had 
not voluntarily borne arms against the United States, nor given aid 
and comfort to its enemies.^ Five hundred delegates from sixty 
counties were then enrolled. 

Both Radicals and Conservatives were out in force, resolved t;o 
make the best fight possible. The first contest was over the ques- 
tion of the basis of representation, in the convention. The Conserva- 
tives proposed to give each member one vote. The Radicals in- 



I. 


Press, Nov. 


13, 1864. 


2. 


See the call, 


, Ibid. 


3- 


Press, Dec. 


10, 1864. 


4. 


Union, Jan. 


10, 1865. 


5- 


Ibid. 





56 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

sisted that each county should have one vote, and one additional 
vote for each 150 votes cast against separation in June, 1861/ The 
question was debated long and vehemently, and the Radicals finally 
won. Their proposition was 'adopted without change. 

The result of this decision ivas not at first apparent to all. Only 
those who had planned the 1 leasure had calculated its effect. In 
the election of June, 1861, t'le thirty counties of East Tennessee 
had cast 33,000 votes against secession; the thirty-four counties of 
Middle Tennessee, 8,000, and the eighteen counties of West Ten- 
nessee, 6,000. This gave Ea?^ Tennessee 250 votes. Middle Tennes- 
see, 87, and West Tennessee, 58.' The efifect of all this was to identify 
the Radical Party with East Tennessee and to give East Tennessge 
absolute control of the sta^e in the work of re-organization. The 
only obstacle in the way of her absolute power would be the lack 
of harmony among her own people. 

The next question, nowever, brought before the convention, al- 
most led to a rupturf in the Radical Party and the loss of the ad- 
vantage already gained. The question was a declaration of the pur- 
pose of the meeting. Some favored adhering to the original plan 
of considering the meeting as a primary assembly to make arrange- 
ments for a Constitutional Convention to meet later. Others 
wished to declare the present convention one of plenary powers, 
competentt, itself, to undertake the work of amending the Constitu- 
tion, and of re-organizing the State Government. The business 
committee favored the latter plan and reported a scheme, consisting 
of certain amendments to the Constitution, a schedule, and a series 
of resolutions, all of which when adopted by the convention, was to 
be submitted to the people for ratification. The opposition declared 
that this was revolutionary. They maintained that the Constitution 
provided a method of amendment, which was by convention, dele- 
gates to which were to be freely chosen by the people. Mr. Butler 
of Johnson County, olifered in lieu of the report of the business 
committee, a series of resolutions embodying this plan. For a while 
the contest was waged between two factions of the Radical Partj. 
The one led by Mr. Butler had law and form on its side, and it 
would likely have won in the end, had it not been joined by the 
Conservatives. The Conservatives were also sticklers for the Con- 
stitution and law, hoping thereby to save slavery or to bring about 

1. Union, Jan. 10. 1865- 

2. Dispatch, Jan. 11, 1865. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 57 

gradual or paid emancipation. The fact that they sided with Mr. 
Butler drove many of his followers to the other faction. 

For two whole days, six sessions of the convention, the question 
was warmly debated. It seemed till near the close that the Constitu- 
tionalists would be successful. They had m.ade by far the greater 
number of speeches and seemed to have a monopoly of the argu- 
ments. The military officers were unable to stand in debate against 
the lawyers, who were all against the proposition of the committee. 
Those who favored the proposition of the business com- 
mittee were unabe to speak in its behalf. It was not 
until the second day of the debate that Colonel Byrd 
rose to a^lvocate the measure. His argument was based partly 
on the necessity of immediate action, and partly on distrust of the 
people. He said that if the convention now nominate candidates 
for the Legislature, each county would be compelled to vote for 
them, but if the people were allowed to choose, they might select 
men not in harmony with the Union. He was afraid to allow the 
people to act, lest they should choose men inimical to the program 
of East Tennesseeans. It is almost certain that the question would 
have been decided in favor of the Constitutionalists if the vote had 
been taken at that time. 

But the Radicals had a last resort. They determined to ask 
Governor Johnson to speak in favor of their plan. He consented, 
and strongly advocated the adoption of the report of the committee. 
He justified such action by that same clause in the Bill of Rights 
which had been quoted to justify secession. His argument, con- 
densed, ran thus: "The people have a right to amend, alter or 
abolish their government, as they may see fit. You are a part of the 
people. Any man may draw up resolutions, which when ratified by 
the people become law. This is Constitutional and consonant with 
the rights of popular government." Governor Johnson was followed 
by Harvey Watterson, who tried to break up the opposition hy 
showing that its desire for delay was only for the sake of saving a 
remnant of slavery.' 

The next morning the debate was resumed, but it was plain that 
the Constitutionalists were weakening. The speech of Governor 
Johnson had changed the minds of many as to the question of 
legality. The address of Mr. Watterson had won over all the 

I. Dispatch and Press, Jan. 12 and 13, 1865. 



58 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

abolitionists. After some time had been spent in explanations, Mr. 
Watterson moved the previous question, and the matter came to 
a vote after a debate of almost three days. The question was upon 
the adoption of Mr. Butler's plan in lieu of the report of the com- 
mittee. It was lost by a vote of 113 to 161.' The report of the com- 
mittee was then taken up by sections and amended, and finally 
adopted as a whole. 

This action of the convention in changing-, what had originally 
been called as a mass-meeting, into a convention with plenary pow- 
ers, was stigmatized at the time by the Conservatives as revolution- 
ary and unjustifiable. And later when the Confederate soldiers re- 
turned, it was made the basis of opposition, especially after the pas- 
sage of the franchise bill. 

The report as finally adopted by the convention proposed two 
amendments to the State Constitution, one abolishing slavery, and 
another forbidding the Legislature to make any law recognizing it. 
The report also contained a series of resolutions directing that all 
who voted on the amendments should take the iron-clad oath ; that 
the returns should be made to the Secretary of State, and the result 
announced by the Governor; and that the convention should nomi- 
nate a candidate for Governor and a complete Legislative ticket.'' 
The schedule which closed the report, repealed that section of the 
Constitution which denied to the General Assembly the power to 
emancipate slaves; revoked the ordinance of secession, dissolved the 
Military League, suspended the statute of limitations, declared null 
and void all acts of the secession government; repudiated the seces- 
sion state debt; and ratified all appointments and acts of Governor 
Johnson. It further provided for two elections, the one on February 
22, to ratify the work of the convention, the other on the 4th of 
March for the choice of a Governor and Legislature, the latter to be 
elected on a general ticket and to assemble on the first Monday in 
April. Finally, the schedule provided that the qualifications of 
voters and limitations of the franchise should be determined by the 
first Legislature which should assemble under the amended Consti- 
tution.^ 

After the adoption of this report and the nomination of candi- 
dates for Governor and Legislature, the convention adjourned. 
Governor Johnson, by proclamation, authorized the opening of polls 

1. Union, Jan. 14, 1865. 

2. Report in Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 7. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 59 

and the holding of elections on February 22, as provided by the 
convention.^ Only forty-two counties rendered returns, fifteen in 
East Tennessee, twenty-one in Middle Tennessee, and one in West 
Tennessee. These counties gave a total of 26,865 votes for and dj 
against the amendments." As this was twenty per cent of the vote 
cast for President in i860, it was considered as more than a com- 
pliance with the provisions of the President's amnesty proclamation 
of December 8, 1863. The amendments were declared ratified 
February 28, by proclamation of Governor Johnson, who at the 
same time authorized an election March 4, for state officers, already 
provided for by the convention. At this election, Wm. G. Brown- 
low was chosen Governor by 23,352 votes, against 35 scattering 
ones. The Legislative ticket received the same number of votes 
as the Governor, since the same ballot which contained the name 
of the Governor, contained the names of twenty-five candidates for 
the Senate, and eighty-four candidates for the House of Represent- 
atives. This method of a general ticket was unusual in Tennessee, 
though not illegal, and it was resorted to in this case to insure the 
election of members from all the districts, as well as to prevent the 
election of any one who had not received the recommendation of 
the convention. This action, also, was afterwards much criticised 
by the Conservatives, but it is hard to see how any other method 
would have succeeded. 

We have now reached the end of the Military Government. The 
proclamation authorizing elections was the last official act of Gov- 
ernor Johnson. From his inauguration as Vice-President till the in- 
auguration of Governor Brownlow, April 5, there was an actual in- 
terregnum in Tennessee. 

In closing this chapter it will perhaps be in j^ace to add a word 
as to the legality of the work of Governor Johnson. Though ques- 
tioned at the time, his authority has since been fully recognized by 
the people and courts of Tennessee. If a Military Governor should 
ever be required again there would be no question as to his powers. 
The Constitutional Convention and the whole people afterward 
ratified the acts of Governor Johnson. The Supreme Court of Ten- 
nessee in several cases has recognized his government as legal. In 
the case of Rutledge vs. Fogg, growing out of the 
collection of taxes by the municipal council of Nashville on 

1. Report in Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 8. 

2. Miller's Manual, 1865. 
3- 3 Coldwell, 554. 



60 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

property occupied during the war by the miHtary forces, the Court 
held that President Lincohi had authority to appoint Governor 
Johnson; that Governor Johnson did not exceed his authority in the 
appointment of the municipal council ; that the Mayor and the Coun- 
cil had the right to levy and collect taxes; and that taxes levied bello 
flagrante were collectable bello cessante. In the case of Ensley vs. 
Nashville, where the city of Nashville tried to escape 
liability for expenses incurred during the military occupation, 
the Court decided that the Mayor and Council appointed by Gover- 
nor Johnson constituted a de facto government, and that the city 
was liable for property taken from individuals for its benefit, and 
by its agents, though these agents were not elected in pursuance of 
the city charter. These decisions are valuable, as local interpreta- 
tions by non-partisan bodies, jealous of extra-legal interference 
with the course of civil law. 
I. 2 Baxter, 144. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE BROWNLOW GOVERNMENT. 

At the inauguration of the new government, it is well that we 
should glance at the character of the men who are about to be 
inducted into oiBce ,and who are to control the affairs of the state 
for several years to come. 

The Governor-Elect, William Gannaway Brownlow, was born 
in Wythe County, Virginia, in 1805, and was left an orphan at the 
age of II years. He began life as a carpenter, but became a 
Methodist minister at the age of 21 years. His first political work 
was the advocacy of the election of J. Q. Adams in 1828. During 
the nullification excitement he was riding the circuit in which 
Calhoun lived. He opposed the doctrine and wrote and published 
a pamphlet in defense of his views. He became editor of the Knox- 
ville Whig in 1838, and remained in that capacity till the war. He 
was especially known for the bitterness of his vituperations. 

In 1843 he ran for Congress and was defeated by Andrew John- 
son. He was appointed by President Fillmore on a commission to 
improve the navigation of the Missouri River. He favored slavery, 
but opposed secession with all his power. His house was the la«t 
to bear the American flag in Knoxville in 1861. On account of 
this he became very unpopular and was compelled to suspend his 
paper October 24, 1861. He was accused of bridge-burning, and 
a company of troops were sent after him with orders to shoot him 
on sight. But his pursuers were unable to find him in the moun- 
tains whither he had fled for refuge. They induced him to sur- 
render under promise of a safe conduct to Kentucky. After some 
months' imprisonment he was sent to Nashville, March 15, 1862, 
whence he went north and remained till 1864. When Tennessee 
was cleared of Confederate troops he returned and took an active 
and leading part in all the work of re-organizing the state. His 
name appeared among those who called the nominating conven- 
tion, May 30, 1864, and he was a member of the Union Central 
Committee from that time till he was elected Governor. He became 



62 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

the leader of the Radicals in Tennessee, and was in close touch and 
sympathy with the Radical leader in Congress, with whom he was 
in constant correspondence.' To the end he opposed any com- 
promise with those who had voted for separation in 1861. 

Governor Brownlow was possessed of no real knowledge of 
state affairs and no real ability save his ability to say hard things 
about his enemies. He was too obstinate and vindictive for a 
politician and too much of a partisan for a statesman even if he 
had possessed the ability and the experience. He was, therefore, 
wholly unfit for the position to which he had been elected. His 
only redeeming trait was his uncompromising Unionism, and his 
election shows how the Union men were willing to put the Union 
before all else. 

As for the Legislature, little can be said, as little is known. 
Of the twenty-five Senators only five had ever been members of a 
Legislative body.^ Five were lawyers, two judges, one a preacher 
and one a Confederate soldier. The others, eight of whom were 
from East Tennessee, were for the most part men of mediocrity, 
whom the war had brought into prominence, either in actual serv- 
ice in the field, or in some ministerial capacity. A few were men 
of ability, and all presumably honest." The inexperience of the 
House is still more glaring. Of the eighty members elected, three 
only had had experience as Legislators. Of the others, four did 
not take their seats. A few of the remainder were men of ability, 
but they had taken an active part in the war and become so radical 
in their views as to be carried beyond reason." The majority felt 
their weakness and inexperience and were just the sort of men to 
follow meekly the direction of the extreme leaders. It happened 
here as usually in such cases, the timid and inexperienced majority 
was drawn in the wake of the radical minority. Fully two-thirds of 
these men served four years and ended their terms of service still 
unknown for anything they had done or said. Their duties were 
performed by voting yes, when asked to do so. In such a time only 
men of the ripest experience should be trusted with public affairs. 
But the men whom the state had honored and trusted in the past 
had almost to a man gone with the state in secession and were now 
ineligible to any position. In order to get Union men in some 
parts of the state the convention had been compelled to take men 

1. Rosters of the previous Legislatures. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Letter of Mr. Kercheval to the Author. 

4. Ibid. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 63 

without experience. In this case, as in the case of the Governor, 
Unionism was the chief requisite. 

The new government was promptly set in motion. The Legisla- 
ture met, according to the terms of the schedule, on the 2d of 
April. Hon. E. H. East, Secretary of State, in turn called each 
House to order and read a certified list of the members elected.' 
Each House then proceded to organize. The Senate chose General 
Sam R. Rogers, Speaker, and Mr. Cone, Chief Clerk. Owing to a 
tie between Edmund Cooper and James R. Hood, the House failed 
to choose a Speaker the first day. On the second day, after the 
withdrawal of Mr. Cooper, Mr. Heiskell was chosen.'' The Legis- 
lature was now ready for work. Its first care was the counting 
of the vote for Governor. Meeting in convention on the 4th, they 
declared W. G. Brownlow elected, and appointed a committee to 
arrange for his inauguration at his earliest convenience.'. The in- 
auguration took place on the morning of the 5th. In the inaugural 
address the Governor dwelt on the approaching end of the war, the 
evils of State Sovereignty and the lessons to be gained from the 
experience of Civil War. 

At last the re-organization of civil power in Tennessee was an 
accomplished fact. A Governor and a Legislature, elected by the 
people, had been installed at the Capital and had started again in 
its accustomed manner the work of administration. The task set 
before the new government was by no means a light one. The 
long discussed machinery engendered a deal of friction in many 
parts which caused trouble and consumed time. But this could 
and would be overcome if the government were allowed to stand. 
And there was no danger from any force within the state, for all 
alike had recognized for months the necessity of government, and 
secretly or openly rejoiced in its re-establishment. Only one thing 
could affect the permanency of the government, the invasion of the 
state by a hostile army. All fear of this was removed by the sur- 
render of Lee and the overthrow of the Confederate Government 
within four days of the inauguration of Governor Brownlow. This 
event relieved the new government of all anxiety as to its tenure. 
^ Already a large number of Confederate troops had returned to 
their homes. The destruction of Hood's Army at Nashville was 
little else than the wholesale desertion of men who had almost re- 

1. House Journal, Session of 1865, April 2. 

2. Ibid, April 2 and 3, 1865. 

3. Ibid, April 4. 



64 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

fused to leave Tennessee with Bragg in 1863/ and had openly said 
that they would not leave again if Hood was defeated. In a few 
days after the surrender of Lee thousands of other soldiers re- 
turned to search for the homes left four years before, having will- 
ingly taken a pledge to conduct themselves as peaceable and law- 
abiding citizens. These men had seen enough of the disasters and 
privations of war, and meant to keep their parole. Their first pur- 
pose was to reconstruct their homes, and provide themselves and 
theirs with the necessaries of life. They realized that they had 
fought to the finish and were on the losing side, but as a rule they 
cherished no hostility toward the Union men who were now in 
control of the state. They were not concerned with politics. They 
knew the history of the re-organization, but they accepted it and 
justified it on the ground of necessity. They considered the dis- 
orders of the time sufificient to warrant the means used in organizing 
the civil power, and did not complain that the government was not 
one of their choosing nor that it represented only one-seventh of 
the voting population of the state. If they were not the friends of 
the established order, they were surely not its enemies, but were 
content to bear the present, believing that time and the intelligence 
of the people would cure all. They realized that it was for the 
present good of all that the government at Nashville should be in 
the hands of men fully trusted by the authorities at Washington. 
There were, indeed, disorders, but they were local, and consisted 
mostly of thieving, and persecution of returning Confederates." So 
far as one can see now, there was at first no opposition to the gov- 
ernment and no danger of an insurrection either patent or latent. 
The conflict of parties, which later became so intense, was not begun 
by the returning Confederate troops. If afifairs could have gone 
on as they were without an election, it seems safe to say that this 
conflict would have been wholly avoided. 

But Federal reconstruction could not be consummated with- 
out an election for Congressmen. To send other than unconditional 
Union men to Washington would be to delay reconstruction. To 
elect Union men required a restriction of the elective franchise 
This restriction would in itself have led to opposition and conflict. 
From the point of view of the Union men of Tennessee this restric- 
tion seemed necessary and just. Of course one cannot say what 

1. Dispatch, Dec. 20, 1864. 

2. Ibid, July 23, 1865. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESS'EE. 65 

would have been the result if the ex-Confederates had been allowed 
to vote and hold office. So far as local affairs are concerned it 
might have been best. General Sherman and others thought it 
would be the safest way to settle the questions of reconstruction.* 
But whatever would have been the result on local affairs, it is cer- 
tain that, for Federal reconstruction, a limitation of the suffrage 
was absolutely necessary. This limitation saved Tennessee from 
military reconstruction. 

While this restriction of the suffrage would necessarily under 
any circumstances have led to opposition on the part of the ex- 
Confederates, the Radicals of Tennessee made the matter worse by 
their hostile attitude. They looked upon the returning soldiers as 
enemies to society and ready to rise at any moment and overturn 
the government. They must, therefore, be deprived of rights, if not 
as a matter of necessity, at least as a matter of justice to the Union 
men. They must be treated as a sort of subject class. It was this 
which made the disfranchisement more galling, and the opposition 
more intense.^ 

The Constitutional Convention had declared in favor of dis- 
franchising all who had fought against the United States. In his 
first message, Governor Brownlow showed that he was determined 
to do his part toward making the declaration a law. After recom- 
mending the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Federal 
Constitution, he reminded the Legislature that the loyal people who 
had entrusted the qualifications of voters to them, wanted them 
to act decisively in the matter and would have no child's play. 
Fearing that this law would engender opposition, he asked the Leg- 
islature to place at the disposal of the Executive an effective military 
force, that he might be able to enforce the law when enacted.^ 

The Legislators were as zealous as the Governor. Even before 
he was inaugurated they had unanimously ratified the 13th amend- 
ment.* Afterward, in obedience to the Governor's request they in- 
troduced and passed three laws of a radical nature, viz.: those or- 
ganizing a Sheriff's posse, punishing libel and sedition, and limiting 
the elective franchise.^ 

The bill organizing a sheriff's posse authorized the sheriff to 
raise twenty-five men as a county patrol to aid civil officers in en- 
forcing order. Only those citizens unquestionably loyal to the 

1. Sherman's Memoirs, I., p. 366. 

2. The papers of 1865-6 are full of statements to this effect. 

3. Message, Acts of 1865, p. 5. 

4. House Journal, April 4, 1865. 



66 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

United States were eligible to serve on this force. In addition to 
this posse the bill gave sheriffs discretionary power to raise a force 
of whatever size they might deem sufficient to capture or to dis- 
perse all opposing elements.^ The alleged excuse for this force was 
the presence of guerrillas in certain parts of the state. In such cases 
the posse was necessary. But in many cases the power was greatly 
abused. The papers of the time are full of accounts of outrages 
attributed to this armed patrol, and it is certain from evidence avail- 
able, that in many cases the patrol was guilty. The purpose of the 
force was really to enable the Governor to enforce the franchise law. 
The bill punishing libel and sedition provided that whoever should 
be guilty of uttering seditious words or speeches, spreading false 
news, writing or dispersing scurrilous libels against the State or 
Federal Government, should be fined and imprisoned at the dis- 
cretion of the Court, and be incapable of holding any office for the 
space of three years. ^ 

The act limiting the elective franchise was the most important 
and far-reaching act of the session. It was the embodiment of a 
purpose which had been in the minds of the Radical leaders for 
more than a year, and oaths had been used for that purpose at all 
elections since the appointment of Governor Johnson. The law 
provided that persons of lawful age and residence, who had enter- 
tained unconditional Union sentiments from the outbreak of the 
war, or who had arrived at the age of 21 years since November 
4th, 1865, or who could prove their loyalty, or had been honorably 
discharged from the Union Army, or were Union men conscripted 
into the Confederate Army, or had voted at the elections of 1864-5, 
should be entitled to the privileges of the elective franchise.' All 
officers, civil, military and diplomatic, all persons who left Federal 
or State offices to aid the Rebellion, and all persons who left homes 
within the protection of the United States to aid the Rebellion, were 
disfranchised for the period of fifteen years. All others not included 
in these categories were denied the privilege of the elective franchise 
for five yeears, after which time on proof of two loyal witnesses in 
open court, the privilege might be restored. County Court Clerks 
were required to keep a registration of voters, and issue certificates. 
Proof under oath was to be made before them, that the persons be- 
longed to one of the classes to whom franchise was granted. No 

1. Acts of 1865, Chapter XXIV. 

2. Ibid, Chapter V. 

3. Ibid, Chapter XVI. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 67 

one was allowed to vote who did not hold a certificate. Any voter 
could be challenged by an admitted voter, and thereupon the judges 
of election must administer a prescribed oath. In this oath, the 
affiant swore that he would support the Constitution of the United 
States, that he was a friend of the government of the United 
States, that he would heartily assist the loyal people to establish 
the national authority over all the people of every state and terri- 
tory, that he would support and defend the Constitution of Tennes- 
see and the amendments and schedule, and the acts of the Legis- 
lature called in accordance with the schedule. Judges of election 
and candidates were required to take the same oath, and any per- 
son who took the oath falsely was declared guilty of perjury. 

Among the resolutions which the Legislature passed at this ses- 
sion were those offering a reward of $5,000.00 for the apprehension 
of ex-Governor Harris;^ requesting the President to proclaim the 
state no longer in rebellion ; and asking the President for troops to 
guarantee to Tennessee a Republican form of government." 

The temper of the Legislature toward the returning Confederate 
troops was better shown by certain acts introduced and discussed 
than by the acts it really passed. May 18, a bill was introduced into 
the House and passed by a vote of 58 to 5, providing a fine of five 
to fifty dollars for wearing the "Rebel Uniform," thus punishing 
men without money for wearing the only clothes they had.' A 
bill was passed by the Senate depriving ministers, who had sym- 
pathized with the Rebellion, of the right to celebrate the marriage 
rites, and requiring them to work on the roads, pay a poll-tax and 
serve in the militia.^ Another bill aimed at the prevention of a fu- 
ture race of Rebels by requiring every woman to take the oath of al- 
legiance to the United States before a license should be issued for 
her marriage." A bill prescribing a test oath for plaintiffs in law- 
suits failed in the Senate by a vote of 10 to 11. 

As the elections for Congressmen were to be held during the 
recess of the Legislature, there would be a good opportunity to ob- 
serve the workings of the recent legislation. Governor Brownlow 
was determined to leave no means unused to keep the opposition 
under control. One means of doing this was the publication of 
proclamations and addresses to the people. 

The first proclamation was issued May 20, against "Revengeful 

1. Acts of 1865, p. 80. 

2. Acts of 1865, p. 81. 

3. House Journal, May 18, 1865. 

4. Senate Journal, May 10, 1865. 

5. House Journal, May 25, 1865. 



68 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 



Practices in East Tennessee," calling on "Rebel" robbers to betake 
themselves to honest pursuits, to make restitution of stolen prop- 
erty and reparation for wrongs done, and to cease from their 
threats of violence. It was manifestly unjust to charge the "Rebels" 
with all these disturbances. Many of them were the work of guer- 
rillas who never were in the Confederate Army, but were merely or- 
ganized bands of robbers. For much of the rest Union men were 
as much to blame as the Rebels, as has already been said. There 
was an organized efifort on the part of the Union men to prevent 
the ex-Confederates of East Tennessee from returning to their 
homes/ and to force them to settle in other parts of the South. 
There were many personal grievances to settle, and many of those 
who returned home were indicted for acts done during the war 
and in military capacity. At one time there were i,8oo cases of 
this sort pending in the United States District Court at Knoxville.* 
But all these matters were merely local and individual and had no 
relation to political affairs or to the validity of the existing govern- 
ment, and the enforcement of law in general. So far as the people 
took any part in public affairs they were favorable to the existing 
order. The newspapers of the period are full of the proceedings of 
county conventions, which were unanimous in their endorsement 
of the Federal and State governments, and the acts of the General 
Assembly. 

The franchise law was the only exception to the above state- 
ment. Because in some cases this law was condemned, the Gov- 
ernor, July lo, issued a proclamation declaring the policy he would 
pursue in the coming August elections.^ He warned the people 
that all who should band themselves together to defeat the execu- 
tion of this law, would be declared in rebellion against the state of 
Tennessee, and dealt with accordingly; that the votes cast in vio- 
lation of that law would not be taken into account in the office of 
the Secretary of State; that the Governor would treat no person 
as a candidate who had not taken the oath prescribed in the act, 
and filed it with the Secretary of State. He called upon the civil 
authorities throughout the state to arrest and bring to justice all 
persons who, under pretence of being candidates for Congress or 
other offices, were traveling over the state denouncing the Constitu- 
tion and laws, and spreading sedition and a spirit of rebellion, and 

1. Press, June lo, 1865. 

2. Ibid, Sept. 10, 1865. 

3. Ibid, July II, 1865. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 69 

warned judges and clerks of elections that they would be held to 
strict account for failure to enforce the law. 

This proclamation was followed two days latci by an address 
to the people, in which the Governor said that he had been sorely 
disappointed in his hopes that the whole people would welcome the 
return of law and order. "The spirit of rebellion still exists," he 
said, "and must be destroyed," In order that all might understand 
the basis and the character of the present government, he entered 
into a long history of the causes which led to the establishment of 
the military government and then of the present government, show- 
ing that it was the work of the man who was then President of the 
United States. Since the government was his work, no one could 
suppose that he would fail to sustain it, and by force of arms if 
necessary. The purpose of the address was to inspire the people 
with a dread of the Federal military. The Governor closed his ad- 
dress by assuring all that the franchise act would be enforced by the 
military if necessary, and all elections by illegal votes would be an- 
nulled/ 

These measures were just the sort that one would expect from a 
man like Governor Brownlow, without experience in state affairs, 
and unable to brook opposition of any sort. It is true that there was 
considerable excitement as the election day drew near, but the ac- 
tion of the Governor only made matters worse. 

All through the month of July, the candidates for Congress, 
Radicals and Conservatives, traversed the several districts of the 
state and advocated their respective claims before the public. The 
Radicals stood on the legality of the State Government, and the 
subsequent legislation, and argued that only members of their 
party would be admitted to seats if elected, or would be able to 
benefit the statr if admitted." The Conservatives who were also 
staunch Union men, and endorsed the re-organized State Govern- 
ment most strenuously denied the expediency of the franchise law. 
Some even condemned it as unconstitutional. 

The election was unattended by violence in any part of the state. 
It resulted in the choice of N. G. Taylor, Horace Maynard, W. B. 
Stokes, Ed. Cooper, Wm. B. Campbell, Dorsey B. Thomas, Isaac 
R. Hawkins and John W. Leftwich for the districts in the order 
named. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Governor, five of the 

1. Dispatch, July 13, 1865. 

2. Dispatch, July 23, 1865. 



70 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

eight, Taylor, Cooper, Campbell, Thomas and Leftwich, were 
elected as Conservatives and were opposed by Radical candidates 
whom they defeated. The whole number of votes cast was 61,783, 
two-thirds of the whole vote cast in June, 1861. 

The following table shows by districts the vote of the two elec- 
tions: 

District. Aug., 1865. June. 1861. 

I ii»345 21,678 

II 12,786 20,625 

III 7,848 18,813 

IV 7,918 16,138 

V 8,098 22,043 

VI 5,156 17,150 

VII 5.131 16,851 

VIII 3.486 16,787 

61,783 150,085 

The districts number from the east toward the west. It will 
be seen from the table that the loss of votes in 1865 increases as one 
goes west. This loss was the result of the operation of the franchise 
law. 

Fraud was openly charged by the Radicals. After the election 
and before the result was known, the Governor following out the 
plan set forth in his proclamation and address, issued a procla- 
mation August II, calling upon clerks, sherififs and loyal citizens for 
information as to whether the registration and election had been in 

accordance with the franchise law." From the information thus re- 
ceived he found that five methods had been used in admitting per- 
sons to vote. When the applicant was known to the clerk to be 
a man of undoubted Union sentiments, he was admitted without 
question. When not so known to the clerk he was admitted upon 
proof of the fact by witnesses. In the third case, the applicant was 
admitted upon his own oath simply, or fourthly, upon the produc- 
tion of an oath of amnesty or allegiance, taken sometime previously, 
or fifthly, upon being vouched for by a civil or military officer. 
The first two of these methods the Governor declared to be proper 

and lawful, the others illegal." On this ground and in accordance 
with the purpose previously proclaimed, he threw out and refused 

1. Dispatch, Aug. 12, 1865. 

2. Am. Ann. Cyclo. 1865, "Tennessee." 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 7i 

to count the votes of twenty-nine counties, a total of 22,274 votes, 
leaving only 39,509 considered as legal. The rejected vote was 
scattered over the whole state, but it changed the result in only 
one district. 

In the sixth district, Dorsey B. Thomas, Conservative, ran 
against Samuel M. Arnell, the author of the franchise bill. Both 
of these were members of the Lower House of the State Legisla- 
ture. By the returns from the election officers, Thomas received 
2,805, and Arnell 2,350. The revised count took 2,284 votes from 
Thomas, and 804 from Arnell, thus electing Arnell by 1,025 major- 
ity." As Mr. Arnell was the Radical leader of the House, the Gov- 
ernor was accused of resorting to this revision of the count in order 
to save him from defeat. 

In the Nashville District, ex-Governor Wm. B. Campbell, who 
was one of five candidates, received 6,357 votes against 1,729 for 
Carter, his strongest opponent. But the Governor threw out all 
the counties but one, and the vote then stood 1,311 to 205, still a 
large majority ^or Campbell. In this instance, the Governor con- 
fessed that a majority of the votes thrown out were cast by persons 
entitled to vote if legally registered." Thus the Governor constituted 
himself a committee on elections, with power to go behind the re- 
turns. He based his authority on the franchise law which required 
a registration of voters and certificates obtained in a prescribed man- 
ner. The law required him to certify that the members were reg- 
ularly elected according to the laws of the state, which he said he 
could not do in face of the facts to the contrary.* 

This was surely an extraordinary proceeding and was not al- 
lowed to pass unchallenged. On the 24th of November following 
both Houses of the Legislature passed, without discussion and 
under suspension of the rules, a resolution calling upon the Gover- 
nor for the documents upon which this action was based.* The 
following day the Governor sent to the Legislature a special mes- 
sage embodying the substance of what has been given above, clos- 
ing with the statement that the official reports of the clerks and 
sheriffs in response to the proclamation of August 11, as well as the 
original returns, were on file in the office of the Secretary of State, 
subject to the examination of all concerned. This did not satisfy 
the minority. They wanted the matter laid before the Legislature 

1. Governor's Message to Legislature; Dispatch, Nov. 20, 1865. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4. House Journal, Nov. 24, 1865. 



72 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

and published. Mr. Brandon of Stewart County, made a motion 
to that effect, which was argued for two whole days, but aside from 
giving the minority an opportunity to condemn the action of the 
Governor in unqualified terms, it came to naught. The resolution 
was tabled on November 28, by a vote of 34 to 25, the speaker vot- 
ing with the minority.' 

Pursuant to the terms of adjournment, the Legislature met 
again October 2. It was in session 239 days, but its time was most- 
ly spent in passing private bills, or in doing nothing, as it was two 
months of the time without a quorum. The Governor's message 
laid before it reads like a mixture of a Republican campaign speech 
and a Thanksgiving sermon.^ After a long harangue on seces- 
sion and the war, and the parable of the prodigal son, he rec- 
ommended the amendment of the franchise bill and the coloniza- 
tion of the negroes in Texas or Mexico, or their admission to full 
citizenship and suffrage, in case the franchise law should be re- 
pealed." The first important act of this session was a bill to render 
persons of African descent competent witnesses in the courts of 
Tennessee in as full a manner as such persons were by an Act of 
Congress competent witnesses in all the courts of the United States. 
By express amendment this act was not to be construed to give 
such persons the right to vote ,hold office, or sit on juries.' When 
slavery was abolished the people thought that was the end of the 
matter. They did not see how the question was to grow in their 
hands. The first session of the Legislature refused by unanimous 
vote to consider a bill similar to the one just passed. The fact 
that they now enacted this law was an indication of the progress 
of the Radicals. Another step was taken in May when the Legis- 
lature passed a law giving persons of color the right to contract, 
sue and be sued, give evidence, inherit, and have full and equal 
benefit of all laws for protection of persons and property, and not be 
punished otherwise than whites for similar offenses.' In passing 
these laws, the Legislature sought to please the Republican lead- 
ers in Congress who had just passed the negro suffrage act for the 
District of Columbia, and thus to gain admission for Congressmen 
from Tennessee who had already been waiting in Washington six 
months. 

The second bill of importance which passed the Legislature 

1. Dispatch, Nov. 26, 1865. 

2. Message, Acts of 1865-6, p. i. 

3. Acts of 1865-6. 

4. Am. Ann. Cyclo., 1866, "Tennessee." 

5. Message, Acts of 1865-6, p. i. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 73 

was the amended franchise act. The Governor had recommended 
this in his message, and the Legislature on the second day of the 
session raised a committee to take the matter into consideration.^ 
Before this committee was ready to report, however, Major Lewis, 
a member from Nashville, made an effort to bring before the House 
a bill representing the sentiments of the minority, repealing certain 
features of the first law and admitting to suffrage all who would 
take the oath in the President's amnesty proclamation.^ But the 
Legislature had its time taken up with the negro testimony bill until 
its passage on the 26th of January. On the following Monday, 
Mr. Arnell, chairman of the franchise committee reported a bill 
which repealed the former law and was to take effect from the day 
of its enactment.^ 

The proposed new law denied suffrage to every one who had 
not constantly opposed secession and the Confederacy. It required 
all persons other than Union soldiers to prove by two legal voters 
that they were not subject to the disabilities mentioned in the act, 
and, in addition, to take the iron-clad test oath; it further provided 
that the Governor should appoint in each county in place of the 
County Clerk a commissioner of registration who should receive 
evidence for and against, and decide in every case whether or not 
to issue a certificate.^ As the law provided for the removal of the 
commissioners by the Governor, it put the suffrage absolutely in 
his hands. After the passage of this law it would be altogether 
unnecessary for him to revise the returns. This bill was rapidly 
pushed to its second reading when a new bill, differing slightly in 
details, was introduced and adopted in lieu of it. This last bill 
was said to be the work of Secretary of State Fletcher, who pre- 
sented it to the Radical caucus and said that it must be passed in 
its present form. It passed its first and second readings under the 
previous question, and was made the special order for the next 
day. This summary proceeding called forth protests from friends 
and opponents of the measure, in such numbers that the leaders 
pledged themselves to allow unlimited debate on the question the 
next day. But on the next day after two or three short speeches 
had been made, Mr. Raulston rose and said that he held himself 
bound by the pledges of no men, leaders or otherwise, and there- 
upon moved the previous question. In this call for the previous 

1. Acts of 1865-6, p. 24. 

2. Dispatch, Nov. 24, 1865. 

3. Dispatch, Jan. 30, 1866. 

4. Acts of 1865-6, p. 42. 



74 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

question he was sustained by the whole Radical majority, including 
the leaders, who thus disregarded their promise/ 

The minority, however, were not to be so surprised. They had 
already come to an understanding. Mr. Poston demanded a call 
of the roll — and finding 57 present, resigned his seat, saying that 
he would not be a part of a quorum to pass such a bill.^ His 
resignation was followed by that of twenty others. This made fur- 
ther legislation impossible for the time being. 

These twenty-one united in an address to their constituents, giv- 
ing the cause of their resignations and their objections to the bill.' 
On March 6, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring vacant 
their seats, and authorizing elections March 31 to fill the vacancies. 
The Governor's proclamation stated that if these men were re- 
turned, and persisted in their refusal to make a part of a quorum, 
and a quorum was thereby made impossible, he would be compelled 
to turn the convicts and the insane loose upon tlie state, for tliere 
was no money to buy food for them.* But this threat was with- 
out avail. In most cases the men were returned. 

After the elections, but before the new members had reached 
Nashville, Mr. Arnell, fearing that the Radicals would be unable 
to carry the measure, in the face of the opposition, although there 
was no quorum present, moved that the bill be declared enacted by 
the House, and transmitted to the Senate, inasmuch as the roll 
showed 57 members present when it passed its third reading. But 
the "Rump House" refused to pass the motion."" 

By the loth of April nineteen new members had reached the 
capital." Since the resignation of these men on February 23, the 
Legislature had adjourned from day to day without a quorum. On 
the 1 2th, the chairman of the committee on elections offered to re- 
port, but the Speaker said that as only 53 qualified members were 
present, the House could not do business, and he was not at liberty 
to receive the report. Mr. Smith then requested that the clerk ad- 
minister the oath to three Radicals, Messrs. Sheppard, Morris and 
Mann, which the Speaker directed to be done. This made the 
requisite number for a quorum, and on motion of Mr. Raulston the 
Franchise Bill passed its third reading by a vote of 41 to 15.' 

The Senate had a quorum April 17, and the next day passed the 
House Bill on its first reading. The Senate had a franchise bill 

I. Letter of Mr. Poston, Dispatch, Feb. 28, 1866. 2. Dispatch, 24, 
1866. 3. Dispatch, March 13, 1866. 4. Ibid, March 6, 1866, Cycle. 
1866, p. 729. 5. Ibid, April 8, 1866. 6. Dispatch, April 11, 1866. 7. 
Union and American, April 13, 1866. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 75 

of its own, however, which occupied its time till May i, when it 
failed to pass its third reading by 5 to 16. The next day the House 
bill passed its second reading- and on the 3rd of May became a 
law by a vote of 13 to 6 under the operation of the previous ques- 
tion." 

It was estimated that, if strictly enforced, this law would reduce 
the electors in the state to 50,000, three-fourths of whom were in 
East Tennessee." As members of the Legislature were by the Con- 
stitution apportioned according to the number of qualified voters, 
the effect was to give to East Tennessee three-fourths of the votes 
in the Legislature.^ 

The necessity for such a law was found only in the rapidly de- 
creasing strength and numbers of the Radical party in the state. 
Additional restrictions were necessary that they might continue in 
power. East Tennessee was carrying out its plan, formed two years 
before, to be, and to control, the State of Tennessee. Whatever was 
necessary for Radicals was necessary for the state. They were 
the state. 

The Union and American speaking calmly and sensibly, and 
even prophetically of this, said:— "It will lead to confusion and ill- 
blood and disgrace. To expect good from it is impossible. Though 
it may not now be so distinctly seen by the majority, it will soon 
become visible that it is full of evil, and nothing but evil. Ten- 
nessee wants peace on the basis of liberty and of constitutional 
laws. This, sooner or later, the people of the state will have, what- 
ever obstructions may be temporarily thrown in their way.^ 

On the first of May a riot broke out in Memphis between the 
whites and blacks, which continued two days and resulted in the 
death or injury of many persons.! As a result of this the Legis- 
lature passed the Metropolitan Police Bill," May 14, which pro- 
vided that the police regulations of the City of Memphis should be 
in the hands of three commmissioners appointed by the Governor, 
and made it a crime for any one else to attempt to exercise any 
control in the city not subordinate to this board. The provisions 
of this act were also extended to Nashville and Chattanooga.^ 
Though much opposition was manifested to this law at the time, 
it seems that it resulted only in good. 

The Legislature tried to keep the minds of the "truly Union" 

I. Union and American, May 5, 1866. 2. Ibid, May 15, 1866. 3. 
Constitution, Article II. Section 5 and 6. 4. Umon and American, May 
6, 1866. s. Dispatch, May s, 1866. 6. Acts of' 1865-6, p. 52. 7. Acts 
of 1865-6. 



76 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

men inflamed against the ex-Confederates by passing a resolution 
to the effect that Jefferson Davis and his accomplices had justly 
forfeited their lives." For the same purpose was a bill passed by 
the House which disqualified all persons who had given aid and 
comfort to the Confederacy, from holding any ofBce whatever, and 
forbade all lawyers guilty of the same offense to practice in the 
courts of the state." The effect of this law, if it had passed the 
Senate, would have been to create anarchy in a large part of the 
state, for there were many districts where the whole population 
had gone with secession. The Legislature adjourned May 28, to 
meet November 5, 1866, but before that date the state had been re- 
admitted to the Union. 

During the spring of 1866 occurred the last act toward the sepa- 
ration of East Tennessee. The movement this time was caused 
by the same conditions which prevailed when the question was 
agitated in 1864, a fear that the rest of the state would get into 
power and control the state.^ The confusion into which the gov- 
ernment was thrown by the resignation of the "twenty-one," was 
the cause of the alarm. East Tennessee was afraid that the new 
franchise law would not be passed. Without it she could not long 
hope to control the state. 

The first step in the new movement was the publication of a 
letter by Joseph A. Cooper about the first of April, in the Knox- 
ville Commonwealth.* This led, about two weeks later, to a call 
signed by 45 of the leading men of East Tennessee for a conven- 
tion at Knoxville, May 3.° The call stated that this step was 
taken in view of the irreconcilable differences of opinion and interests 
heretofore and now existing between the people of East Tennessee 
and those of the other grand divisions of the state. 

The convention assembled on the appointed day and Judge 
Samuel Rodgers, former Speaker of the Senate, was chosen chair- 
man. Among the noted men on the business committee were T. 
A. R. Nelson and O. P. Temple. This committee reported in 
favor of immediate separation, and assigned as a reason for the 
step, the fact that the rebels were in the majority, and were likely 
to control the state. For protection the Union men had Ipeen 
forced to enact a franchise law. As a result of this a bitter animos- 
ity had sprung up which could be obviated only by separation." 

1. Ibid, p. 74. 

2. Dispatch, Nov. 15, 1865. 

3. Speech of Nelson in the Convention, May 3, 1866. 

4. Union and American, April 4, 1866. 

5. Ibid, April 19, 1866. 

6. Dispatch, May 6, 1866. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 77 

In a speech in favor of the report Mr. Nelson said that they 
wanted a state in which they could govern. This was the key-note 
of the whole movement. After two days' deliberation, resolutions 
were adopted providing for the appointment of a committee to 
memorialize the Legislature to authorize the Governor to provide 
for a vote of the people of East Tennessee on the question. The 
memorial was presented to the Legislature on May i6, and re- 
ferred to a select committee.' On the i8th, this committee pre- 
sented a majority report in favor of a resolution authorizing writs 
of election." But as the franchise law had already been passed, 
there was now no reason for separation and the resolution failed 
to pass. Thus ended, and most likely for all time, the long talked 
of and much desired scheme for the state of East Tennessee. 

But the Legislature, adjourning May 28, was soon in session 
again. Notwithstanding the fact that the Governor and the ma- 
jority of the Legislature were following closely in the wake of the 
Radical leaders in Congress, Tennessee's Congressmen were still 
kept waiting at Washington. The 14th Amendment to the Con- 
stitution of the United States was yet demanded.^ This was sub- 
mitted to the state, June 16. Governor Brownlow, June 19, issued 
his proclamation convening the Legislature in extra session, July 
4, to take action on the matter.* 

There was an unusual tardiness on the part of the legislators in 
reaching the Capital, owing to the opposition of many members to 
the proposed amendment. Neither House had a quorum for sev- 
eral days. The Senate got a quorum first and ratified the amend- 
ment by joint resolution July 11, by a vote of 14 to 6 under the 
operation of the previous question, after a few speeches had been 
made and several amendments offered and voted down.^ 

The House did not get a quorum till the 19th. On the nth, 
the Speaker was instructed by the House to issue warrants for the 
arrest of eight members who were staying away from the Capital 
to prevent a quorum. As there were only 52 members present the 
right of the House to adopt such a resolution was questioned." But 
the Speaker issued the warrants and placed them in the hands of 
the sergeant-at-arms. On the 14th, as there was still no quorum, 
Mr. Arnell tried to cut the knot by offering a resolution to estab- 
lish a new basis for a quorum.' By this resolution two-thirds of 

I. House Journal, May 16, 1866. 2. Union and American, May 19, 
1866. 3. Inasmuch as Tennessee was admitted immediately after the 
adoption of this amendment it seems that Congress considered its rati- 
fication necessary. 4. Proclamation, Acts of Ex-Session of 1866. p. i. 
5. Ibid, July 12, 1866. 6. Dispatch, July 12, 1866. 7. Ibid, July 15, 1866. 



78 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

those actually holding seats in the House, instead of two-thirds of 
those belonging to it, were to constitute a quorum. But this reso- 
lution, though freely discussed, never came to a vote. 

The Governor became exasperated on account of the delay, and 
on the 4th, applied to General Thomas, the commander of the de- 
partment, for military assistance to compel the legislators to perform 
their duty. The Governor's application was referred to General 
Grant at Washington, who in turn referred it to Secretary Stanton. 
Secretary Stanton replied on the 17th, that the duty of the United 
States forces was not to interfere in any way in controversies be- 
tween the political authorities of the state, and that General Thomas 
would strictly refrain from any interference between them.^ 

On the 1 6th, however, the sergeant-at-arms reported that he 
had arresed Mr. Williams at his home in Carter County, and had 
brought him to the Capital, where he held him under guard." On 
the i8th, the seargeant-at-arms announced that he had arrested and 
brought into the hall, Mr. Martin, of Jackson County. On this 
same day, Mr. Williams applied for and obtained a writ of habeas 
corpus, returnable before Judge Frazier of the Criminal Court. 
Upon hearing the case the court ordered the prisoner discharged/ 
But the House passed a resolution denying the jurisdiction of the 
court, and ordered the sergeant-at-arms to hold the prisoner.* On 
the 19th, 54 members were present and these, with two under arrest 
in the committee-room, made the requisite number for a quorum. 
Mr. Mullins moved to adopt the joint resolution.^ The Speaker 
announced that there was no quorum. Williams and Martin were 
thereupon invited in but they refused to come unless the House 
wished to investigate their cases. Mr. Mullins appealed to the 
House from the Speaker's decision as to a quorum. The vote 
was taken and the appeal sustained by a vote of 42 to 11. The joint 
resolution ratifying the 14th amendment was then put and carried by 
43 to II. Again the Speaker decided that a quorum was not pres- 
ent. Mr. Arnell appealed from the decision and the appeal was 
sustained by a vote of 42 to 11. The Speaker thereupon announced 
amid the applause of the House that the joint resolution was 
adopted. Thus ended the struggle, for this action was taken as the 
legal ratification of the 14th amendment.^ 

Mr. Williams, upon 1ms release, brought suit for damage against 

1. Am. Ann. Cyclo. 1866, p. 729. 

2. Ibid, July 17, 1866. 

3. Frazier Impeachment Trial, p. 24. 

4. Acts of Ex-Session of 1866, p. 31. 

5. Dispatch, July 20, 1866. 

6. Proceedings in Union and American, July 10-20, 1866. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 79 

every member who had contributed to his arrest. When trying to 
serve the process the sheriff was ordered from the hall. The House 
in retaliation appointed a committee to draw up articls of impeach- 
ment against Judge Frazier, for his action in the case.^ The Sen- 
ate tried the case and convicted Judge Frazier June 12, 1867, de- 
posed him from office and forever disqualified him from holding any 
office of profit or trust in the state. This disability, however, was 
removed by the constitutional convention of 1870, and Judge 
Frazier was afterwards elected to the office from which he had been 
deposed."" 

The ratification of the 14th amendment, in the manner described 
above, gained for the congressmen from Tennessee waiting at 
Washington, the long desired admission to seats. The manner of 
this admission and the cause of the long delay will be given in the 
next chapter. 

1. Frazier Impeachment Trial. 

2. Miller's Manual, 1867. 



CHAPTER IV. 



FEDERAL RECONSTRUCTION. 



The whole subject of the reconstruction of the seceded state 
turned upon the question whether they were out of the Union. 
The answer to this question was to determine the legal status of 
the states and to decide the policy of the Federal Government to- 
ward them, after the surrender of the Confederate armies. If they 
were out of the Union they could be re-admitted properly only by 
a formal Legislative act requiring the sanction of both Houses and 
the signature of the President. If they were states in the Union they 
had, as such, certain constitutional rights which the Federal Gov- 
ernment must respect, and either House of Congress might at its 
own discretion admit members from those states.^ The question 
was, therefore, a practical and important one. 

The different answers to this question gave rise to dififerent 
theories of reconstruction, and were later the cause of the long 
quarrel between the President and Congress. These answers were, 
in part at least, the result of different conceptions of "State" and 
"Union." 

The term '"state" in its fullest sense includes the three ideas of 
people, territory and government, but it is also capable of being 
used in the sense of any one of these ideas."" This triple use of 
the word led to ambiguity and confusion during the reconstruction 
period. Some men used the word in the sense of territory. Thus 
Mr. Dumont argued that the states were in the Union for, "the 
soil of South Carolina is within the United States just as before the 
war." ' Others used the word in the sense of government. This 
was Mr. Sumner's idea when he declared that the states were dead, 
and urged Congress to proceed to establish "governments" in all 
the "vacated territory," providing for all the "inhabitants."* Mr. 

1. Raymond, Globe, 1865-6, p. 126. 

2. Texas v.White. 7 Wall, 700. 

3. Globe, 1865-6, p. 1,473. 

4. Globe, Feb. 1862, p. 736. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 81 

Beaman used the term in the same sense. "When the state be- 
comes vacated by treason," he said, "her territory and her people 
still remain within the limits of the United States." ' Again, he 
said: "By the action of the people in making war, the state, or 
the government, is out of existence. I regard the terms state and 
government as synonymous." ° Still others used the term iiT the 
sense of people. Thus, Mr. Ten Eyck said: "In my opinion the 
people of a state constitute the state." ^ This was also the opinion 
of the Supreme Court.* 

For this confusion of ideas, the Federal Constitution is in some 
degree responsible, for in the Constitution the term "state" is not 
always used in the same sense. Its most common meaning is that 
of an organized people within a defined territory, but in several 
instances it is used in a restricted sense of territory," or people," or 
government.' In the loth amendment there seems to be a dis- 
tinction made between a state and the people of the state. 

Neither is the Constitution consistent in its use of the word 
"Union." In the clause "The President shall give information of 
the state of the Union," * the word means much more than in the 
phrase, "to form a more perfect Union." The word occurs five 
times in the Constitution and only twice is it used as equivalent to 
"The United States." ' 

Based upon these different conceptions of "State" and "Union," 
the question whether the states were out of the Union received from 
the members of Congress four answers more or less distinct. The 
first answer was that the states were never out of the Union, but so 
soon as their officers should perform their duties, the states would 
enjoy the privileges conferred by the Constitution, and that not 
by virtue of a new admission, but by virtue of the original one." 
Mr. Yeaman said: "A formal return or re-admission of any state 

1. Globe, March, 1864, p. 1,243. 

2. Ibid, p. 1,244, 

3. Globe, 1862-3, p. 3,140. 

4. 3 Dallas, 94. 

5. U. S. Const, I. 9, 5; HI-, 2, 3; IV., 2, 3- 

6. Ibid, IV., 4-1. 

7. Ibid, I., 10, i; I., 10, 2. 

8. Ibid, II., 3, I- 

9. Ibid, II., 3, I- Ibid, IV., 4, i. 
ID. Pendleton, Globe, 1863-4, P- 2,105. 



82 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

to the Union is not necessary. It is sufficient that the people shall 
at any time resume the functions of state government compatible 
with the Union and with the laws and Constitution of the United 
States.^ In this answer the state was conceived of as existing 
independent of government and as being in the strictest sense inde- 
structible, either by its own acts or by those of the United States." 

The second answer was that the seceded states were in the Union 
and subject to the Federal law, but that their functions and rights 
were suspended because they were so disabled that they could 
not by proper officers perform the one nor claim the other. In 
support of this answer it was argued that "a state has certain prac- 
tical relations to the Government of the United States. But the 
fact of those relations being practically operative and in actual force 
at any moment does not constitute its relationship to the govern- 
ment, or its membership of the United States. Its practical opera- 
tion is one thing. The fact of its existence as an organized com- 
munity is quite another." ^ This answer made the government of 
the state an essential part of the state, but it considered the gov- 
ernment as still existing in the constitution and laws of the state. 
The absence of officers did not destroy the government nor the 
state, but only disabled the state. 

The third answer was that the states were legally foreign states 
during the war, and conquered territory at the close.^ By this 
answer the state was conceived to exist independent even of mem- 
bership in the Union. The Union consisted in the relations of the 
states to the Federal Government and ended with a failure of the 
states to perform the duties imposed on them by the Federal Con- 
stitution. 

The fourth answer was that the states were non-existent' — "that 
any vote of secession works an instant forfeiture of all those 
powers essential to the existence of the state as a body-politic, so 
that from that time forward the territory falls under the exclusive 
jurisdiction of Congress as other territory, and the state, being 
felo de se, ceases to exist." ' This answer went farther than the 

1. McPherson's History of Rebellion, p. 327. 

2. Raymond, Globe, 1865-6, p. 121. 

3. Beaman, Globe, Nov., '64, 1,243. Stevens, Globe, Dec. 1862, p. 50. 
Howard, Globe, 1865-6, p. 24. 

4. Beaman, Globe, March, '64, p. 1,244. 

5. Sumner, Feb. '62, Globe, 736. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 83 

last, and found not only membership in the Union, but the state 
itself, to exist in its practical relations with the Federal Government. 

The first of these answers is the only one warranted by the Con- 
stitution. The third, perhaps, most nearly expressed the actual 
conditions,' but it was contrary to the Constitutional view of the 
war,^ since it in fact asserted the doctrine of the advocates of seces- 
sion. It set aside the supposition of the existence of loyal men in 
the South and would have made the United States liable for all 
the debts of the Confederacy.^ All these answers were only so many 
attempts to harmonize the law and the facts in a case which the 
law did not, and was never meant, to cover. According to the 
Constitution, a state in the Union must have a government repub- 
lican in form, whose officers have taken an oath to support the 
Constitution,* and whose citizens habitually render it allegiance and 
obedience. The United States must so have admitted it into the 
Union as to have assumed to guarantee to it this particular form of 
government and to have second to it as a "state" certain rights of 
participation in the Federal Government. These relations once 
established could not legally be changed by an act of the state or 
of the United States. This was the doctrine of the indestructibility 
of the states, and upon this doctrine was founded the restoration 
theory with which the Federal Government began the war. 

According to this restoration theory the seceded states were 
"just as truly states of the American Union as they were before the 
war."° A formal readmission was unnecessary. The people were 
only to resume the functions of the pre-existing state government." 
This was the opinion of President Lincoln given in his first in- 
augural address,' and in his first message to Congress.* In all his 
proclamations and in all his dealings with the seceded states during 
the early months of the war, he continued to act upon this theory. 

Congress, too, early declared its adherence to this same theory. 

1. G. Smith, History of U. S., p. 296. 

2. Saulsbury, Globe, 1865-6, p. 28. 

3. Globe, 1865-6, p. 122. 

4. U. S. Const., VI., 2. 

5. Globe, 1865-6. p. 121. 

6. McPherson's History of Rebellion, p. 327. 

7. Ibid, p. 126. 

8. Globe, July, 1861, pr. app., p. 3. 



84 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

On July 22, 1861/ Mr. Crittenden offered in the House a resolu- 
tion which declared that the war was not waged for the purpose of 
subjugation, nor for interfering with any rights or institutions of 
the states, but "to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality 
and rights of the several states unimpaired." This resolution was 
adopted by the House without debate and with only two dissenting 
votes. It was immediately introduced in the Senate by Senator 
Andrew Johnson, and was adopted by that body with only five 
votes in the negative, and these mostly those of Senators from 
Southern states then on the point of resigning their seats. This 
declaration of purpose adopted by an almost unanimous vote of 
Congress, expressed in a still greater degree of unanimity the senti- 
ments of the Northern people.^ The President, Congress and the 
people began the war with the theory that the states were still in 
the Union and that they had only to restore their practical relations 
and to resume all their former rights and privileges, and matters 
would go on as before. 

Following the policy of the President, and in harmony with the 
Crittenden resolution, Congress, too, in various ways recognized the 
seceded states as states of the Union. As we have seen, they ad- 
mitted to seats the men elected in Tennessee in August, 1861.' They 
recognized the Pierpont government in Virginia and on its au- 
thority formed the State of West Virginia. In apportioning mem- 
bers in March, 1862, they included all the Southern states and as- 
signed to them their full number of Representatives." In the 
revenue and direct-tax laws, the Southern states were made to bear 
their part. Until December, 1863, all the states were called on 
alike for bills and resolutions. Even as late as 1865 the Southern 
states were counted as states in the Union in ratifying the 13th 
and 14th amendments. 

Thus the President and Congress, by their acts and declarations, 
stood pledged to a simple restoration of the states when the war 
was over. When Tennessee was reclaimed, the President appointed 
Andrew Johnson to assist the people to restore their government, 
and the Senate promptly and unanimously ratified the appointment, 

1. Globe, p. 222. 

2. Globe, p. 257-265. 

3. Globe, Dec, 1861, p. 21. 
4- Globe, 1865-6. p. 352. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 85 

thereby giving additional evidence that they considered the plan as 
their own. 

The restoration theory was founded on the doctrine that a state 
cannot commit treason, a doctrine which was maintained by Demo- 
crats and Republicans alike, but for different reasons. The Repub- 
licans held that secession and war were not acts of the states, but of 
certain illegal combinations of individuals whose acts did not afifect 
the status of the states. Only the individual men who performed 
these acts were guilty oftreason." The Democrats held that seces- 
sion was, indeed, a state act, but that the states were not guilty of 
treason, for they were not subjects of the Federal Government." 
In upholding the doctrine both Republicans and Democrats made 
a distinction between a "state" and "the people of a state," which 
the Supreme Court had declared was an impossible distinction.^ 

The government adhered to the restoration theory till the fall 
of 1863, when both the legislative and executive branches advanced 
to a new position. Three years of civil war had caused them to 
give up the theory of the indestructibility of states with which the 
war was begun, and to accept the view that the states were so dis- 
abled by the subversion of their governments that the Federal power 
was necessary to re-organize them and that certain conditions must 
be imposed on them and certain changes made in their constitu- 
tions precedent to their readmission to a part in the general gov- 
ernment. This was a radical departure from the principles held 
heretofore. The imposition of conditions on the states was equiv- 
alent to the re-creation of the states, not their restoration, accord- 
ing to the former theory. To distinguish this new theory from the 
former one it may very properly be called the Reconstruction theory, 
using the word in its active signification. 

This change in the policy of the government had been gradual 
and was caused by a change in the people produced by the pro- 
longation of the war. Every defeat of a Federal army was treasured 
up against the Southern people and increased the feeling that some 
punishment ought to be put upon the states for their secession, and 
that some provision ought to be made as security for the future. 

1. Raymond, Globe, 1865-6, p. 121. Stewart, Ibid, p. i,437- 

2. Latham, Globe, 1865-6, p. 139. 

3. 3 Dallas, 94. 



86 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

Added to this feeling, was the desire, if not the absokite necessity, 
on the part of the government to deal in some way with the ques- 
tion of slavery in the states. This feeling and this desire or neces- 
sity caused men to view the question of the reestablishment of the 
Union in a new light. 

In accordance with this new theory both the President and Con- 
gress proposed each a plan of reconstruction and each plan found its 
warrant in the same constitutional provision, the clause guarantee- 
ing a republican form of government to every state in the Union. 
The cause of this double plan of reconstruction was an ambiquity 
in the language of the clause, which says, "the United States shall 
guarantee." If it had named the President or Congress as the 
guarantor, there could have been no grounds for dispute, and the 
long contest between the authorities and the long delay in the re- 
construction of the states would have been avoided. 

In the contest between Congress and the President the ques- 
tion was, which had the right to act as guarantor for the United 
States. In its favor Congress had the opinion of the Supreme Court 
that under the guarantee clause the right to determine what gov- 
ernment is republican in form belongs to the Legislature.^ While 
the President, as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, was 
presumably the proper authority to suppress in the states any hostile 
military power either foreign or domestic, and, as Chief Executive 
of the United States, to enforce the Constitution and the laws 
when that military power had been overthrown. 

Congress argued that since the governments of the states were 
subverted the re-admission of the states was equivalent to the admis- 
sion of new states, which, it cannot be denied, is a legislative act. 
The President denied that the re-organization of a state under a 
constitution already recognized by Congress was the same as the 
admission of a new state. He maintained that the Constitution 
compelled him to assist and to encourage the people to reorganize 
the state governments under the existing constitutions. This view 
seems to be warranted by the Constitution. Whatever power Con- 
gress may claim over the readmission of the states, the reorganiza- 
tion of the civil power within them seems to be entirely beyond the 
purview of its authority. 

I. Lather vs. Borden. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 87 

The President's plan confined the action of Congress to the ad- 
mission of members by the respective Houses. In this he seems 
to have been sustained by the opinion of the Supreme Court in 
the very case upon which Congress based its authority. The court 
said: "When Senators and Representatives of a state are admitted 
into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government 
under which they are appointed as well as its republican character 
is recognized by the proper constitutional authority." ^ Although 
the court declared that the right to determine what government is 
republican in form belongs to Congress, it seems to have limited 
its action, in recognizing the government, to the separate action 
of the Houses in the admission of members. 

But even if one should grant the extreme claim of Congress 
that it had jurisdiction over the whole question of the reorganiza- 
tion and the re-admission of the states, one cannot help feeling that 
it acted unwisely in the manner and means it chose to assert that 
right. A much better way would have been to have allowed the 
President to reorganize the states, since he had begun the work, 
and to have required the joint action of the two Houses for the 
recognition of the governments thus formed, before the admission 
of Senators and Representatives, as was in fact done in the case of 
Tennessee. This would have accomplished the end that Congress 
had in view, without challenging the action of the President, and 
without laying Congress open to the charge that it entered the con- 
test for the sake of power. 

The first indication of a change in the policy of the President 
was his Emancipation Proclamation. The change was complete in 
the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 
1863. The details of this plan have been sufficiently given in the 
chapter on "Military Government." The main features to be re- 
called here are that the President agreed to recognize the govern- 
ments of the seceded states, organized according to certain prescribed 
rules, as the governments republican in form to be protected by 
the President from invasion and domestic violence, and that he 
left wholly to Congress the right of recognizing the governments 
by the admission of Senators and Representatives from those states. 
This was the Presidential plan of reconstruction which was ad- 

I. Lather vs. Borden. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

hered to by President Lincoln as long as he lived, and which, 
adopted by President Johnson, remained in force till March, 1867. 

The President was the first one to propose a plan of reconstruc- 
tion, but it pleased no party. "Democrats and Republicans joined 
in one cry, and both, as if inspired with the same motive, fell upon 
it, stripped it of its raiment, and lashed it in mockery naked 
through the world." ' The Democrats objected to it on account of 
its unconstitutionality, and the Republicans, because it assumed the 
right of the President to control the re-organization of the states 
to the exclusion of Congress. Everything which the President had 
ever done was criticized, by one or the other party, or by both, in 
the most vehement manner. 

From the very first there had been in Congress evidences of 
radicalism and opposition to the restoration theory. As early as 
July, 1861, in the debates on the Crittenden resolution," Mr. Sher- 
man had said, "All must be subjected to the Constitution, but we will 
give them all rights under the Constitution." The use of the word 
"give" leaves us in doubt whether he meant that Congress would 
allow the states to take their rights and privileges granted by the 
Constitution, or that Congress, by legislative enactment, would be- 
stow these upon the states. 

Senator Baker, of Oregon, in the same debates, was more ex- 
plicit. He said: "It may be that instead of finding within a year 
loyal states sending members to Congress and replacing their Sen- 
ators upon this floor, we may have to reduce them to the condition 
of territories and send men from Massachusetts and Illinois to con- 
trol them, and if there were need to be so, I would risk the stigma 
of being despotic and oppressive rather than risk the perpetuity 
of the Union of these States." ' A week later Mr. Thaddeus Stevens 
sounded the key-note of his policy of reconstruction. In the debate 
on the confiscation bill he said, "Mr. Speaker, I thought the time 
had come when the laws of war were to govern our action. I hold 
that the Constitution has no longer the least effect upon the states." * 

On the first day of the next session, an efifort was made to have 

1. Scott, Reconstruction During Civil War, p. 273. 

2. Globe, 69. 

3. Globe, July, "61, p. 69. 

4. Globe, p. 2,282. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 89 

the Crittenden resolution reaffirmed by Congress, but the motion 
was laid on the table in the House by a vote of 71 to 65, which 
action indicated that a change had already taken place in the senti- 
ments of the members of that body/ Frequently during that and 
the following session resolutions of a similar character were re- 
introduced and always tabled with ever-increasing majorities. 

In February, 1862, Mr. Sumner introduced in the Senate a series 
of resolutions which set forth his theory of state-suicide and his plan 
of reconstruction." And a few days later Mr. Morrill, of Maine, 
declared that there was no limit to the powers of Congress, that 
it possessed the "absolute powers of war." " 

In this same month efforts were made in both Houses to have 
Congress provide by general law for the reconstruction of the Union. 
A bill was reported in the Senate which provided for a governor 
and three judges to be appointed by the President, who, acting 
jointly, constituted a legislature with power to change the laws 
of the state. The bill was discussed at some length, but the influ- 
ence of the Crittenden resolution was still too great. It was tabled.* 
in March, 1862, Mr. Ashley reported a bill in the House, similar 
to the one reported two years later, but it was laid on the table, with- 
out discussion, by a vote of 65 to 56. This vote, however, is sig- 
nificant, as it indicates a great change in the sentiments of the 
House, from that expressed in the Crittenden resolutions. 

If Congress had adopted some plan of reconstruction when it 
had the subject under consideration, the future contest between it 
and the Executive would have been avoided. But Congress, unable 
to agree, laid the bills on the table. Unfortunately the question of 
reconstruction could not be laid on the table. Necessity compelled 
the President to act. Then Congress, under the influence of the 
war spirit and being backed by the decision of the Supreme Court 
before mentioned, looked with jealousy upon the action of the Pres- 
ident as a usurpation of powers rightfully belonging to itself, and 
determined to take steps to carry into effect in its own way the 
Constitutional guarantee to the states. Therefore, just one week 
from the day of the President's Amnesty Proclamation, on motion 

1. Globe, Dec. 4, '61, p. 15. 

2. Globe, p. 736. 

3- Globe, Feb. 25, '62, p. 942. 
4. Globe, 1862-3, p. 3,188. 



90 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

of Mr. Henry Winter Davis in the House a resolution was adopted 
by a vote of 89 to 80, providing for a committee with instructions 
to report bills necessary to carry into effect this guarantee.' 

The committee spent two months of anxious labor in trying 
to harmonize the various and conflicting elements of the Repub- 
lican party. On the 15th of February, Mr. Davis, as chairman, 
reported a bill which authorized the President to appoint in each 
reclaimed state a Provisional Governor to take charge of the civil 
administration until the people should organize a government in the 
manner and under the conditions specified in the bill.' A regis- 
tration of all white voters by United States marshals was required. 
Whenever a majority of these voters took the oath of allegiance to 
the Constitution, the loyal people were to elect delegates to a con- 
vention which should amend the state constitution so as to dis- 
franchise all persons who held any office, state or Confederate, un- 
der the usurping power (except ministerial offices and officers in the 
Army and Navy below the rank of a colonel and lieutenant) ; to 
abolish slavery' and guarantee freedom, and to repudiate all debts 
created by the usurping power. These amendments were to be 
ratified by the people. The Provisional Governor was to certify to 
the President the adoption and ratification of these amendments. 
The President, after obtaining the consent of Congress, was to 
recognize, by proclamation, the re-organized government as com- 
petent to elect Senators and Representatives. Not until after this 
had been done could congressmen and presidential electors be legal- 
ly chosen. Until this work was completed the Provisional Governor 
was to remain in charge of the civil administration and enforce Fed- 
eral laws those of the state enacted before secession.' 

The plan proposed in the bill, differed little from the Presidential 
plan. They agreed generally in details and both found their war- 
rant in the same constitutional provision. There was one essential 
difference, however. The Congressional plan required the consent 
of Congress before the President could recognize the governments 
of any of the states as being republican in form, while the Pres- 
idential plan restricted the action of Congress to the admission or 
rejection of Senators and Representatives. This difference, how- 

I- Globe, Dec. 15, '63, p. 212. 

2. Globe, p. 668. 

3- Globe, 1863-4, P- 3.448- 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 91 

ever, was sufficient to put the whole question of reconstruction 
under the control of Congress, if the bill became a law. 

The bill gave rise to long and heated debates. Instead of 
harmonizing and unifying the various element? in Congress, as it 
was intended to do, it served rather to make more distinct the lines 
of clearage between them. Five factions more or less distinct 
appeared in the House. 

The first of these was led by Mr. Davis himself, and it held to the 
principles of the bill that the states were in the Union, but that they 
were dead and required Federal authority to revive them. In in- 
troducing the bill Mr. Davis bespoke for it the support of every 
member of Congress, for in his opinion it proposed the only rational 
plan of keeping the peace and administering the Civil Government in 
the seceded states, a duty which was imposed upon Congress until 
the people should submit and re-organize a government which Con- 
gress could recognize as the one to be guaranteed. In the course 
of his speech he severely criticized the Presidential plan, which 
action set in clear light the ever-widening gap between the President 
and the majority in Congress.' 

The second was the Radical taction, led by Thaddeus Stevens, 
and it boldly maintained that the states were out of the Union, in 
the condition of foreign states, and that they would come back into 
the Union only as conquered territories, wholly subject to the power 
of Congress, which had a "plenary, supreme, and unlimited jurisdic- 
tion" over them. This faction opposed the bill because the bill rec- 
ognized the seceded states as possessing rights under the constitu- 
tion. They found the right of Congress to interfere in the affairs of 
the states not in the Constitution, but in the law of nations.^ They 
fiercely attacked the Presidential plan and scouted the idea that the 
Executive could transform rebellious states into oyal ones.* This 
faction was so small that Mr. Stevens boasted that he stood almost 
alone, but he was sure that the majority would soon adopt his 
views.* This boast came to pass. The Radical faction became more 
and more numerous, until it finally captured the Republican party, 
and with it. Congress. 

1. Globe, 1863-4, App. p. 82. 

2. Globe, Jan. '63, p. 239. 

3- Globe, Jan. '64, p. 316. 

4- Globe, 1862-3, p. 244 - 



92 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

The third faction consisted of those members of the House who 
adhered to Summer's theory of State-suicide.^ They were led chiefly 
by Mr. Beaman, who held the opinion that the states had ceased to 
exist, but that the guarantee clause gave Congress power to create 
new states and to impose upon the people any conditions compatible 
with a government Republican in form. He was in favor of the bill 
and endeavored to harmonize the Davis and Stevens factions with 
his own. He regarded the difference of opinion as one rather of 
terms than of ideas, of theory, than of practice. "The important 
question," he said correctly, "was not what term would apply most 
correctly to the states, but what could be done with them.'" If 
the state was abrogated Congress could permit a new creation under 
such restrictions as it chose to direct. If the state survived, but its 
constitution and government were destroyed. Congress could allow 
a re-organization under whatever terms it wished. If the state had 
become a foreign po?;'e5. Congress might treat it as a part of the 
national domain and re-admit it as a new state. "In either case 
we may provide for her people a suitable government for such time 
as she may be unable to resume her place in the Union." ' 

The fourth faction was composed of those who maintained that 
the re-organization of the states was properly the work of the Ex- 
ecutive, and considered his plan the best way to deal with the sub- 
ject. They contented themselves with voting against the bill, with- 
out otherwise opposing it. 

The fifth and last division was the Democratic party, which by 
this time was reduced to a mere party of protest. Mr. Pendleton 
spoke for the party. In opposing the bill he argued that if the acts 
of secession were invalid, they had no eflPect and the states were 
still in Union. Their constitutions were not abrogated, but so soon 
as their officers performed their duty, the states would resume their 
rights and privileges. "The acts of secession," said he, "are not in- 
valid to destroy the Union and valid to destroy the state govern- 
ments." * He maintained that the states were entitled to all political 
rights. Thus he set forth the doctrine of the indistructibility of the 
states which the Democrats still held and continued to hold through- 
out the period of reconstruction. They refused to unite with the 

I Globe, March, '64, 1,244. 

2. Globe, March, '64, p. 1,244. 

3- Globe, p. 2,105. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 93 

moderate Republicans in securing mild conditions of reconstruc- 
tion, until the moderate men themselves became radical and then the 
Democrats were overwhelmed. 

The debates on the bill continued till May 4, when it passed the 
House by a vote of 76 to 66, and was immediately reported to the 
Senate. It remained in the hands of the Senate Committee till May 
27, when Senator Wade reported it, and appeared as its champion. 
He considered the passage of the bill a necessity. He approved of 
it because it discarded the theory that the states could lose their 
rights. "Once a state, always a state," said he. In the course of 
his speech he took occasion, as Mr. Davis had done in the House, 
to attack the Presidential plan, declaring it to be "absurd" and 
"contrary to Republicanism."' 

. An effort was made to amend the bill so as to prevent any of the 
seceded states from casting votes for President until the war had 
been declared at an end, but this failed. Senator Summer opposed 
the bill, and wished the Senate to declare by resolution that the 
states were "without title to representation," until they had been 
"re-admitted by a vote of both houses of Congress,""" but the Sen- 
ate refused to act on his resolution. The bill was delayed in the 
Senate, perhaps, purposely,' until July 2, when it was passed by a 
vote of 26 to 3, only a few hours before the sine die adjournment of 
Congress. 

Congress had now passed the bill, and in doing so had challenged 
the actions and policy of the President in presuming to meddle with 
the re-organization of the states, and had asserted its own paramount 
authority over the whole subject of reconstruction. What would 
the President do with the bill? Would he yield to the views and 
wishes of the majority in Congress, and sign it, or would he set the 
majority against him by vetoing it? He did neither, but held it a 
few hours until the adjournment of Congress, when it failed to be- 
come a law by constitutional provision, without his taking the re- 
sponsibility of vetoing it. This action of the President deprived 
Congress of a year's hard work, and the leaders, feeling themselves 

1. Globe, July, '64, p. 2,449. 

2. McPherson's History of Rebellion, p. 320. 

3. Wade-Davis Protest; Scott, Reconstruction, etc., p. 412. 



94 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

out-generaled, departed sullenly to their homes, resolved on ven- 
geance at the first opportunity. But the nomination of the Presi- 
dent, a month before, for a second term, and the certainty of his re- 
election gave him a feeling of security, and he resolved to lay the 
subject of the contest between himself and Congress before the 
people and ask them to pass judgment upon it. He felt himself 
secure with the people if he should only set his action and his policy 
clearly before them. Accordingly, July 8, he issued a proclama- 
tion, reciting the provisions of the bill and giving his reasons for 
not signing it.^ While approving of the measure as "one proper 
plan," he declared himself unwilling by signing it to be committed 
to any single plan, especially to one which would result in over- 
throwing the free state governments already set up in Arkansas and 
Louisiana. 

If the President had remained silent, the Congressional leaders 
and the friends of the bill would have been unable to say anything 
against his "pocket veto." But now that he had laid the matter be- 
fore the people, these leaders resolved on a vigorous protest against 
his action, despite the fact that he had been the unanimous choice of 
his party for a second term. The protest or manifesto, addressed 
"To the Supporters of the Government," was published July 12th, 
and signed by Wade and Davis, who had reported the bill in the 
Senate and House respectively. 

The protest was a rather lengthy document. It denied every 
statement the President had made in his proclamation, characterized 
his action as "dictatorial usurpations," and discussed the claim of 
Congress to the exclusive jurisdiction over the reconstruction of the 
states. It attacked the President's plan of reconstruction, by de- 
scribing the state governments of Arkansas and Louisiana which 
had been formed in accordance with that plan, and which the Presi- 
dent had said he was unwilling to overthrow, as "mere creatures of 
his will — mere oligarchies imposed upon the people by military 
order." In closing, the President was warned that "he must confine 
himself to his executive duties — to obey and execute, not to make 
the laws." 

The underlying motive of the protest is seen in this sentence: 
"Congress passed a bill; the President refused to sign it, and then 

I. Scott, Reconstructon, etc., p. 410. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE 95 

by proclamation puts as much of it in force as he sees fit, and pro- 
poses to execute those parts by officers unknown to the laws of the 
United States and not subject to the confirmation of the Senate." 
This made more than ever clear what had been apparent from the 
beginning of the session, that the question at issue between the 
President and Congress was merely a contest for power.' Congress 
had been unable to provide any plan of reconstruction. The Presi- 
dent had proposed one and had begun to execute it, when Congress 
challenged his action by asserting its own exclusive jurisdiction over 
the reconstruction of the states. The President had bided his time 
till the passage of the bill, when he put it in his pocket, and, exult- 
ant with victory, asked the people to stand by him. The Congres- 
sional leaders, smarting under defeat, angrily attacked him, hoping 
thereby to win the people to their side, but hoping in vain. 

This episode of the proclamation and protest, whereby both the 
President and Congress appealed to the people, closed the first en- 
gagement in the contest between them, leaving the President victor 
for the time being. 

As both the Presidential and Congressional plans found their 
authority in the guarantee clause of the Constitution, the debates 
on the Wade-Davis bill very properly turned on the meaning of 
that clause. Then, as thereafter the interpretations put upon the 
clause by the different members served as a sort of political weather- 
cock to indicate their feeling and attitude on the questions con- 
nected with the reconstruction of the states. It has already been 
shown that the ambiguity in the wording of the clause led to the 
two plans of reconstruction, and, by rousing the passions of the 
parties, to the long contest, and that it was finally responsible for 
military reconstruction. 

But a second question arose as to what was a government re- 
publican in form. Was the authority, granted by this clause to the 
United States, limited to the re-establishment of the former state 
governments which had already been pronounced republican in 
form by Congress, or did that clause give authority to demand cer- 
tain changes in the former constitutions? The Democrats, still hold- 
ing to the doctrine of the indestructibility of states, maintained 
that the guarantee clause gave the United States no power to 

I. S. S. Cox, Union, etc., p. 352. 



96 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

demand changes in the state constitutions; that the United States 
had never claimed that authority before the war, and that the war 
gave no new power, but only vindicated the right to exercise the 
former power; that any change in the constitution of a state was 
equivalent to a new creation of the state, which could be done, 
only by the people of the state, acting in accordance with that con- 
stitution. They argued, further, that the governments of the seceded 
states were as republican in form as they were before the war, and 
having once been recognized as of the proper form, the United 
States Government had no grounds for interference, but was bound 
by the very clause in question to sustain them against invasion and 
domestic violence.^ In support of this position Senator Carlyle 
quoted from Madison in the Federalist as follows: "But the au- 
thority [under this clause] extends no further than to a guaranty 
of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing 
government of the form to be guaranteed as long, therefore, as the 
existing republican forms are continued by the states, they are 
guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the states may 
choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to 
do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter.'" From 
this, he concluded that the Federal authority was limited to a re- 
establishment of the state governments as they existed before seces- 
sion. "The guarantor," said he, "is not a principal to a contract 
and can make no changes in it." 

This view, however, was not held by the majority in Congress. 
In the debates on the Wade-Davis bill, Mr, Davis said that in his 
opinion the power granted by the guarantee clause was similar to 
that of admitting new states,^ and that it gave the United States 
the right to demand such changes in the constitutions c the states 
as were compatible with the results of the war. This mterpreta- 
tion was sufficiently broad to admit the views of all Republicans, 
for the right of the United States to demand certain changes in 
the state constitutions was the essential principle of reconstruc- 
tion as distinguished from restoration, and was the basis of both 
the Presidential and Congressional plans. All Republicans found 



I Globe, April, '64, p. 1,739. 

2. Fed. No. 42, Dawson, p. 302. 

3. Globe, 1863-4, App., p. 82. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 97 

in the clause the power not only to restore "the Union," but to con- 
struct "a better Union." 

Mr. Beaman held in effect the same view as Mr. Davis. He did 
not believe that Congress had a right to demand changes in the 
constitutions of the states, nor could it guarantee that the states 
would establish governments republican in form, but it could govern 
the states until they did form such a government as Congress could 
recognize." Mr. Stevens held that the clause bestowed upon Con- 
gress a "plenary, supreme, and unlimited" power over the states' 
governments, which Mr. Pendleton declared would subject every 
state in the Union to the caprice of Congress, which might at any 
time decide that any state government was not republican in form. 
Mr. Boutwell thought Mr. Pendleton's objection was not a valid 
one, for in his opinion, Congress had the right to change its opinion 
respecting any state government, and having once recognized it, 
could overthrow it if a controversy should arise concerning it,' Mr. 
Sumner called the guarantee clause "the sleeping giant," and con- 
gratulated Congress that "the giant" had been awakened. He 
found in it authority for doing all things. 

In the subsequent history of reconstruction, no change was 
made in the interpretation placed upon the guarantee clause by 
the 38th Congress. The principle adopted by Mr. Davis was never 
departed from. There was, however, and continued to be, a dis- 
agreement as to the extent and character of the changes "com- 
patible with the results of the war." From the passage of the Wade- 
Davis bill there is a constant change toward radicalism, and the 
changes demanded of the states become more and more numerous. 
Finally, anything ethically desirable, found its constitutional sanc- 
tion in Mr. Sumner's "sleeping giant." 

The change of the Federal Government from the theory of 
restoration to that of reconstruction, from the doctrine of the in- 
destructibility of states, to the doctrine that the guarantee clause 
gave the United States power to demand such changes in the con- 
stitutions of the states as were compatible with the results of the 
war, has been insisted upon because of its importance. A knowledge 
of this change as well as of the ever-increasing tendency of Con- 
gress to set aside the limitations placed upon its action by the Con- 
I. Globe, Dec, '64, p. 2. 
, 2. Globe, Nov., '64, p. 1,244. 



98 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

stitution and to increase the number and scope of the conditions 
imposed upon the states, is absolutely necessary to a correct under- 
standing of the history of reconstruction. In this change and in 
these tendencies is the whole history of the period. If the doctrine 
once be granted that the Federal Government could impose con- 
ditions upon the states precedent to the admission of Congressmen 
there was no logical stopping place short of the position of the 
Radicals that secession and war destroyed the state governments 
and put the peoples and territories under the control of Congress. 
Any position short of this was merely a matter of policy. When- 
ever it became desirable to carry the doctrine to its logical con- 
clusion, men would not be wanting, who would do it. The Demo- 
crats and the Radicals held the only logical views, and they were the 
only men to adhere consistently to their views to the end. The 
one view found its warrant in the letter of the Constitution, the 
other in necessity and the laws of war. 

The majority in Congress in 1864 held a middle ground and 
imposed rather mild conditions on the states. The Democrats and 
the Radicals held the two extremes. The majority agreed with 
the Democrats at the beginning, with the Radicals at the close of 
the reconstruction period. The time which the majority required 
to make this change from the one to the other extreme — from the 
doctrine that a state is indestructible to the doctrine that the main- 
tenance of secession by force works a total abdication of all rights 
under the Constitution — was the time required to solve the prob- 
lem of reconstruction. This change can be seen in a general way 
in the character of the different Congresses. The 37th Congress 
stood for restoration, the 38th Congress, for the Wade-Davis plan 
of reconstruction, and the 39th Congress, for the military recon- 
struction. But the change went on gradually and rapidly from 
day to day, and can readily be followed in the acts and utterances 
of Congress, which became more and more radical and revolution- 
ary. Senator Browning, of Illinois, described the general tendency 
when he exclaimed: "Timid m.easures are treason now. It is 
bold, active, decided men, men with nerve enough to neglect pre- 
cedent and all the past, and with resolute hand reach forth to grasp 
the future, that we want in this hour." Constitutionalism was ridi- 
culed and every infraction of the Constitution and ancient prin- 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 99 

ciples of interpretation was justified by the plea of necessity. In 
the end the Radicals prevailed, and the boast of Mr. Stevens, that 
the majority would overtake him and go along with him, became 
a fact' 

The history of reconstruction in Congress from the passage of 
the Wade-Davis bill to the re-admission of Tennessee, from July, 
1864, to July, 1866, can be given in a few words. There were no 
new theories advanced, no new plans, no new arguments. In all 
the debates, there appeared the same differences of opinion, and the 
same divisions into factions, as in 1864. The only difference was 
a gradual change toward radicalism, already spoken of, a develop- 
ment along lines previously laid down. 

Throughout the year 1864, the Presidential plan was the only 
one before the people. During the year governments had been 
re-organized in Arkansas and Louisiana, and when Congress met 
in December, Senators and Representatives from those states were 
waiting in Washington for admission to seats. But Congress, espe- 
cially the Radical faction, was not disposed to submit tamely to 
what they called the "dictatorial usurpations" of the Executive. It 
was everywhere apparent that a conflict was pending, and this was 
soon precipitated by the report of the committee on credentials, 
which laid before the House the question of the recognition of the 
government of Louisiana, organized under the Presidential plan.' 
The debates on the question severely criticized the action of the 
President, and both Houses, by formal vote, refused to recognize 
his work as a legitimate state government. The debates on the 
joint resolution declaring the seceded states not entitled to repre- 
sentation in the Electorial College gave another opportunity to the 
Radicals to vent their spleen against the President, and the adop- 
tion of that resolution was another blow to the Presidential plan.' 

Congress also made another attempt to pass the Wade-Davis 
bill. December 15,* Mr. Ashley introduced the bill, which he with- 
drew January 16, in order to substitute another recognizing the gov- 
ernments of Arkansas and Louisiana and providing for negro suf- 
frage. This last went over till February 20, when, after a long de- 

1. Globe, Jan. '63, p. 243. 

2. Globe, Dec, '64, p. 2. 

3- Globe, Feb., 1865, p. 533. 
4. Globe, p. 668. 



100 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

bate, Mr. Ashley withdrew it and substituted the original bill. The 
debates on these bills are a repetition of those of the last session. 
All the withdrawing and substituting resulted from the old schism 
in the House, which had been increased by the organization of gov- 
ernments in Arkansas and Louisiana. A large number of members 
were unwilling to imperil the work already done there, by the adop- 
tion of some dififerent plan. The radical and conservative mem- 
bers alike opposed the bill recognizing those states, the one be- 
cause they thought the government illegal, the other because of 
Negro suffrage. The bill was laid on the table Feb. 23, by a vote 
of 91 to 64, and Congress adjourned March 4, without further 
action. Another year had passed and Congress had been unable 
to provide by law for the reconstruction of the states. 

The chief cause of the failure of Congress to pass the bill was 
the belief of Mr. Ashley and his friends that the members of the 
next Congress, who were already elected, would be more advanced 
in opinion and would consent to a more radical measure. "I do 
not expect to pass this bill now," he said. "At the next session, 
when a new Congress fresh from the people shall have assembled, 
with the nation and its representatives far in advance of the pres- 
out Congress, I hope to pass even a better bill."^ 

At the time of the adjournment of Congress the collapse of 
the Confederacy at no distant date was plainly apparent. The end 
came sooner than was expected. Within a month the surrender 
of Lee and the abdication of the secession state governments left 
the South wholly destitute of any sort of government. The failure 
of Congress to provide for the reconstruction of the states, left 
the President free to carry into effect his own plan. As the ques- 
tion of reconstruction could be laid on the table now, even less 
easily than heretofore, it was necessary for him to undertake imme- 
diately the re-organization of governments in the states. He had 
already taken the first steps toward this re-organization when his 
life was ended April 14, by the act of the assassin. 

Judged in the light of its effect on Tennessee the assassina- 
tion of President Lincoln seemed to the Radicals in the state like 
a special providence in its behalf. The new state government had 
scarcely been in operation two weeks, when their former Gov- 

T Globe. '64-s. p. 1,002 , 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. tOl 

ernor, the man who had been foremost in the re-organization of 
that government, was unexpectedly placed at the head of national 
affairs, where he could guide the work of reconstruction and assist 
the state in regaining its rights and privileges in the Federal Union. 
If there had been doubt of the attitude of President Lincoln toward 
the new government, there could be no doubt of the hearty coop- 
eration of President Johnson, who had taken such an active part in 
its organization, and whose whole purpose was centered in the com- 
plete restoration of the state. 

Viewed, however, in the light of the subsequent history of the 
general question of reconstruction, the death of President Lincoln 
was a great disaster. Not that he would have been able to prevent 
a conflict with Congress, for this already existed, and was certain 
to become more serious as the question pressed for immediate set- 
tlement. But having brought to a successful close the great Civil 
War, President Lincoln would have been far too popular, and re- 
spected far too highly for his experience and wisdom, for Congress 
to have attempted to oppose him as they did President Johnson. 

The fact that President Johnson was a new man in the Executive 
chair, and especially the fact that he was from a slave state, and 
from a state, too, not represented in Congress, caused Congress, to 
look with suspicion on all he did, and to fear that he would deal 
too leniently with the Southern states in their reconstruction, and 
especially in questions concerning the negroes. These considera- 
tions, and the additional fact that he, by temperament and disposi- 
tion was not so well fitted as President Lincoln to draw to his 
support the dififerent factions in Congress increased the opposition 
and widened the breach already existing between the President and 
Congress. 

The death of President Lincoln made no change in the policy 
of the Federal Government toward the seceded states. President 
Johnson succeeded naturally to the policy and plan hitherto pur- 
sued by the government. He, as every one else, understood this 
policy to be the "promptest possible restoration of civil govern- 
ment in the states by the aid of Executive power.'" As this plan 
required no aid from Congress, it was fortunate that Congress was 
not in session. The new President indicated the policy to be pur- 

I. Herbert. Noted Men of the South, o. « 



102 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

sued by retaining the cabinet chosen by his predecessor, who were 
known to be in favor of the Presidential plan. 

The sudden collapse of the Confederacy was remarkable. Within 
six weeks of the surrender of Lee not a soldier was in arms. The 
authority of the United States in all the departments of the govern- 
ment was everywhere re-established. The last of the Confederate 
armies surrendered in Texas, May 26, and three days later Pres- 
ident Johnson issued his Proclamation of Amnesty. The same day 
he published the plan of re-organization prepared by President 
Lincoln^ and appointed W. H. Holden to execute the plan in North 
Carolina. This plan was substantially that of December 8, 1863, 
and differed from the Wade-Davis bill chiefly in restricting the 
action of Congress to the admission of Senators and Representa- 
tives by the respective Houses. Similar proclamations followed 
soon for all the seceded states. 

The people of the Southern states accepted the plan of the 
President with such readiness, and returned to their allegiance to 
the Constitution with such unanimity, as to alarm the Republican 
politicians, and to inspire distrust in the minds of the Northern 
people. There is, however, every reason to believe that the South- 
ern people were acting in good faith.^ Ever since the beginning 
of the slavery agitation, they had looked upon the Constitution as 
protecting slavery, and were as devoted to it as the Northern people 
were to the Union. They carried what they conceived to be the con- 
stitution of their fathers into secession with them and fought to 
maintain it. When the war was over, and secession and slavery 
were forever gone, they felt that they were not returning to the 
Constitution but that they were bringing what was left of it back 
with them." They had never known any other. This is why the 
people manifested a greater unanimity in returning to the Union 
than in going from it. 

During the spring and summer of 1865, President Johnson re- 
moved the restrictions on commerce,* revoked the order suspending 
the writ of habeas corpus^ and declared the war at an end in all 

1. McCulloch, Men and Measures of Half o Century, p. 378. 

2. Report of General Grand, Dec. 18, 1865. 

3. Tlie surrender of the South was not to the North, but to the 
Federal Government — the Constitution became the treaty of peace. 

4- June 13, 1865. 
5. Dec. I. i8f)5 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNBSSEE. 10* 

the states east of the Mississippi." When Congress met in Decem- 
ber eight states had been re-organized, so far as lay in the powet 
of the people. All offices were filled by men loyal to tlie Constitu- 
tion, and Federal and state laws were everywhere enforced. The 
13th amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of states, 
five of the re-organized states being counted among the number. 
The question was no longer whether the President or Congress 
should re-organize the states, for rightly or wrongly, they had been 
re-organized by the President. Everything was done and Senators 
and Representatives were waiting in Washington for re-admission. 
The question now was whether a Republican Congress should admit 
Democratic members from the Southern states, or overthrow thf' 
governments established in those states and impose military gov- 
ernments upon them. In doing the latter Congress was influenced 
by questions of policy and politics rather than by questions of law. 
To provide for the security of the freedmen and to secure the con- 
tinued supremacy of the Republican party in the Federal Govern- 
ment, were the two purposes which lay nearest the hearts of the 
Radicals in Congress. They saw the means of gaining both in 
negro suffrage. To force this upon the states they must be kept 
in tutelage under military government.' 

We have now pursued the subject of Federal reconstruction to 
the close of 1865. In this review it has been the constant aim to 
make clear the departure of the government from former constitu- 
tional principles, the attitude of Congress toward the question of 
reconstruction, its ever-increasing radical tendency and the grounds 
of dispute between it and the President. It will be remembered that 
Congress in the Wade-Davis bill adopted the hitherto unheard of 
principle that the recognition of the state governments by the joint 
action of the two Houses, was necessary before Senators and Re2- 
resentatives from those states couid be admitted to seats, and that 
it justified the imposition of conditions upon the states on the 
ground that the guarantee clause gave Congress the right to de- 
mand whatever changes in the state constitutions it thought com- 
patible with the results of the war. These doctrines, in the hands 
of the Radicals, who were soon to capture Congress, v/ere to effect, 
not the restoration, but the re-creation of the states. 

1. April 2, 1866, 

2. S. S Coy. T'ni'vTi et<,.. v*. 3i^ 



104 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

To this point the reconstruction of Tennessee and that of the 
other states, have gone hand in hand. From this time on, how- 
ever, Tennessee, in the minds of all public men of the time, stood in 
a class by itself,' and we must now confine our attention exclusively 
to the history of the re-admission of that state. 

When Congress met in December, Senators and Representa- 
tives from Tennessee were waiting in Washington. But long before 
that time the question of their admission to seats began to be dis- 
cussed. Early in September, General Rosseau, in command at 
Nashville, wrote to certain members of the delegation and asked 
them pointedly what attitude they would take toward the adminis- 
tration if that should be admitted.' They replied that they would 
support the policy of President Johnson and the Federal Govern- 
ment. These answers were published in Northern papers, and 
many public men declared themselves in favor of admitting these 
men at the opening of the next session. 

But a month before the opening of the session, Mr. McPherson, 
clerk of the House, announced his decision not to put on the official 
roll the names of any men claiming to be elected from any Southern 
state.' This decision of the clerk was endorsed by the Republi- 
can caucus held at the opening ot the session.* 

Congress assembled at noon. December 4, and when the Clerk, 
in calling the roll, reached Indiana, Mr. Maynard, from the First 
District of Tennessee, rose and attempted to speak, but the Clerk 
would allow no interruption of the roll. At the close of the roll- 
call Mr. Morrill moved to proceed with the election of Speaker, 
when Mr. Maynard again attempted to obtain the floor. He was 
called to order by Mr. Stevens on the ground that his name did not 
appear on the roll of the House. The Cerk sustained the point, 
and the House decided to proceed with the election of Speaker. 

Early in the session Congress adopted a concurrent resolution 
providing for a joint committee to take into consideration the whole 

1. Globe, 1865-6, p. 1,306. Colfax assured Maynard before the open- 
ing of Congress that he favored admission of Tennessee, and would speak in 
favor of it. Cincinnati Gazette, Dec. 20, 1865. 

2. Dispatch, Sept. 20, 1865. 

3. Washington Post, Oct. 23, 1865. 

4. Globe, 1865-6, p. 26. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 105 

question of the reconstruction of the states, and to which all papers, 
resolutions and bills relating to the subject should be referred with- 
out debate/ An effort was made by Mr. Raymond to except Ten- 
nessee from the jurisdiction of this committee. He presented the 
credentials of the members-elect from that state as a question of 
privilege and moved that they be referred to the Committee on 
Elections. The struggle which the state had made for the Union 
had won for her many friends, and, there is little doubt that a ma- 
jority of both Houses were willing to re-admit her to all her former 
rights and privileges. It became a question, therefore, whether 
the credentials should be referred to the Committee on Elections or 
to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. If to the former the 
question would have come before the House in a few days, and in 
the present state of feeling, the members from Tennessee would 
most likely have been admitted to seats. The Radicals, however, 
became alarmed and said that the credentials must be referred to 
the Joint Committee, for the question involved in their opinions was 
not the mere admission of Congressmen, but the creation of a state 
which required the joint action of the two Houses and the consent 
of the President. Others, not doubting the propriety of admitting 
Tennessee, but fearing to admit her without the joint action of both 
Houses, least they should thereby open the door to the other South- 
ern states not so well prepared for admission, voted with the Radi- 
cals, and the credentials were referred to the Joint Committee on 
Reconstruction. This action had the efifect to delay many months 
the admission of Tennnessee. Soon after this, perhaps, as a result 
of it, the two Houses separately resolved not to admit members 
from any seceded state until that state had been formally re-admitted 
to the Union by the joint action of the Houses, thus re-affirming the 
principle of the Wade-Davis bill adopted two years before. 

Tennessee was referred to a sub-committee of the Joint Com- 
mittee on Reconstruction, consisting of Messrs. Grimes, Grider and 
Bingham. While this committee was collecting evidence and pre- 
paring its report, certain members of Congress wrote to Governor 
Brownlow, and Mr. Fletcher, Secretary of State of Tennessee, to 
ask their opinion of the admission of the members from that state. 
The Gorernor and Secretary replied in substance that if the admis- 

<V»obe. Dec. 4, '65, p. 2 



106 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

sion of Congressmen would cause the withdrawal of the army from 
the state, they were opposed to it. These letters were made the most 
of by those who opposed the admission of the state.^ 

On the 5th of March, however, Mr. Bingham, on behalf of the 
Joint Committee, made a report concerning the condition of Ten- 
nessee," recommended the re-admission of the state, and submitted 
a joint resolution to that effect, with accompanying evidence and 
documents.^ This resolution passed a second reading and was left 
at that stage for the time being, the House being too busy with 
the 14th amendment and the revenue bill to take up the question of 
reconstruction.* Tennessee was again compelled to wait. 

Months passed by without further action, but as the end of the 
session drew near, vigorous effort were made to have the state 
re-admitted. The success of these efforts was assured by the action 
of the state in ratifying the 14th amendment, as described in a 
previous chapter, which was announced in Washington, July 19, by 
a telegram from Governor Brownlow." On that very day, Mr. 
Bingham called up the resolution where it had been left four months 
before, and substituted for it another, simpler in form." 

The first resolution had been an elaborate statement of all the 
reasons which led Congress to re-admit the state, as well as the con- 
ditions upon which it was to be re-admitted. The preamble declared 
that the people had expressed their desire for re-admission, had 
amended their constitution and had organized a loyal government 
in accordance with the same, that they were found to be in a condi- 
tion to exercise the functions of a state in the Union, and that they 
could do this only by the consent of the law-making power of the 
United States. The resolution declared that the state was thereby 
admitted to be a state in the Union "on the express condition," 
that the people enforce the provisions of the franchise law, and 
the amendments to the state constitution, and that they ratify the 
terms of the resolution itself before the admission of Senators and 
Representatives.' These were, indeed, hard and humiliating con- 
ditions. 



New York Dispatch, Jan. 29, 1866. Globe, p. 465. 
Globe, p. 1 189. 
Globe, p. 3,948. 
Ibid. 

Globe, July, 20, 1866, p. 3,956. 
Globe, p. 3,948. 
Globe, July, 1866, o. 3,948. 



SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 107 

The substitute imposed no conditions. It merely said that as 
the state had ratified the 14th amendment and had shown to the 
satisfaction of Congress her return to her allegiance to the United 
States, she was thereby "declared to be restored" to the Union 
and entitled to representation in Congress. The next day, how- 
ever, the phrase "declared to be" was cut out, the effect of which 
was to express more positively the power of Congress over the 
restoration of the states. Congress not only declared that the state 
was "restored" but that Congress had restored it. The same idea 
is implied in the fact that a resolution of any sort was thought 
necessary before the admission of Senators and Representatives. 

Mr. Boutwell wanted the resolution amended so as to make 
negro suffrage a condition of representation,' while Messrs. Wood 
and Le Blond wanted it simply to declare that the United States 
recognized the government of Tennessee as legitimate and entitled 
to all rights and guarantees under the Constitution.^ But Mr. 
Bingham would allow none of these amendments to be offered. The 
substitute passed to its third reading and the next day was adopted 
by a vote of 125 to ^2, under the operation of the previous question. 
The result was greeted with demonstrations of applause on the 
floor and in the galleries.^ 

On the 2 1 St, Mr. Trumbull reported the resolution in the Sen- 
ate and asked for immediate consideration.* The Senate voted to 
postpone all other business until the matter was disposed of. The 
Senate amended the resolution by substituting for the one adopted 
by the House a longer and more elaborate preamble, which, after 
giving the history of the acts by which the state had gone out 
of the Union and those by which it had re-organized a loyal govern- 
ment, declared explicitly that the state could only be restored to 
the Union "by the consent of the law-making power of the United 
States." Thus amended the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 
28 to 4. The House concurred in the amendment and the resolu- 
tion was sent to the President for his signature." 

In adopting this resolution Congress reasserted the principles of 

1. Globe, July, '(£, p. 397. 

2. Ibid. 

3- Globe, p. 3,980. 

4- Globe, p. 3,987. 

5- Globe, July, '66, p. 4,056. See text of resolution App. Globe, 1865-6, 
p. 430; also McPherson's History of Rebellion, p. 153. 



108 SECESSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE. 

the Wade-Davis bill, that the state was out of its proper political 
relations in the Union, that it could be re-admitted only by Con- 
gress and that the re-admission must be, not by, but precedent to, 
the admission of Senators and Representatives — that the resolution 
was intended to admit the state, not merely to recognize its gov- 
ernment as legitimate. The President opposed all of these prin- 
ciples and in the passage of the resolution Congress gained a decided 
victory over the President and the Presidential plan. The re-ad- 
mission of the state in the manner described was, in effect, as in 
law, not the restoration of the state according to the Crittenden 
Resolution, but the re-creation of the state, and was in some sense an 
acknowledgment of the validity of the ordinance's secession. 

President Johnson took this view of the matter but to refuse 
to sign the resolution would have defeated his long cherished wish 
to see the state restored. He signed the resolution, therefore, on 
th 23rd, and accompanied his message by an elaborate protest 
against the position of Congress that a joint resolution was necessary 
to the restoration of the state, and said that his approval of the 
resolution was not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the 
right of Congress to pass laws preliminary to the admission of duly 
qualified Representatives from any cf the states, nor did he consider 
himself committed to all the statements made in the preamble.' 

On the same day on which the President signed the joint reso- 
lution, the entire delegation from Tennessee was admitted to their 
seats,' and the formal restoration of the state to all her rights under 
the Constitution was an accomplished fact. 

1. Globe, July, '66, p. 4,102. 

2. Globe, July, '66, p. 4.106. 



